Will Trump Break JFK's Agreement On Cuba?

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) came within an inch of all-out nuclear war with each other. To resolve the crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev entered into an agreement in which the United States agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia’s decision to withdraw nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba.

For more than 50 years, both Russia and the United States have complied with that agreement.

Russia has never re-installed nuclear missiles into Cuba.

In turn, the United States has never re-invaded Cuba.

Given President Trump’s recent acts of aggression against Cuba, the question naturally arises: Will Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment break the commitment that President Kennedy made by initiating another military invasion of Cuba?

Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961, the U.S. national-security branch of the federal government, which, by this time, had become the most powerful branch, employed deception, subterfuge, lies, and manipulation to induce the new president into authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The plan called for using a contingent of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade the island, with the aim of ousting the communist regime that had come into power with the Cuban revolution in 1959.

The CIA told Kennedy that no U.S. air support would be needed. They also told him that the Cuban people hated Cuban leader Fidel Castro and would rise to the assistance of the U.S. invaders.

Both were lies, and the CIA knew it was lying to Kennedy. The CIA figured that once its invasion got underway and was going to go down to defeat at the hands of the communists, JFK would have no other effective choice but to authorize the air support — as a way to “save face.”

But JFK stood his ground, and the U.S. invasion of Cuba went down to defeat. This was, of course, the beginning of the vicious and ruthless war between JFK and the U.S. national-security establishment that would end in JKF’s defeat on November 22, 1963. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

After the disaster of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon continued to pressure Kennedy into ordering an invasion of Cuba. As part of this pressure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented JFK with one of the most shameful and immoral plans in U.S. history — Operation Northwoods. It called for terrorist attacks on American soil in which innocent Americans would be intentionally sacrificed at the hands of U.S. agents who would be falsely portraying themselves as Cuban communists. The terrorist attacks would then be used as a justification for invading Cuba and violently achieving regime change.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods, much to the deep anger and rage of the national-security branch against which he was at war.

Why was the national-security branch so obsessed with invading Cuba? Their mindset was part of their old Cold War racket, which came into existence after World War II to justify the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian-like governmental structure with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.

The Cold War racket involved inculcating the American people with a deep fear that the Reds were coming to get them. Central to this racket was the notion that the Reds in Cuba were only 90 miles away from American shores and, therefore, needed to be taken out before they invaded Miami, fought their way up the Eastern seaboard, and captured Washington, D.C. Never mind that Cuba was an impoverished Third World Country that lacked the remotest capability of even crossing that little stretch of water and successfully conquering the well-armed citizens of Miami. Never mind also that Cuba has never initiated any act of aggression against the United States and that it simply has always wanted to be left alone by the U.S. national-security branch, which has always steadfastly and obsessively refused to leave Cuba alone.

Castro knew that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were pressuring Kennedy into ordering another invasion of Cuba. That’s when the Russians came to his assistance. They installed nuclear missiles in Cuba to hopefully deter the U.S. from invading again. Alternatively, the missiles were to serve as a means of self-defense if the U.S. were to initiate another war of aggression against Cuba.

It’s important to recognize something important here: The Cubans had every right in the world to have those nuclear missiles installed in Cuba. After all, Cuba is a sovereign and independent country. It is also worth noting that Cuba, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself from invasions and wars of aggression, including those initiated by the United States.

But no one (including Russia), likes to have nuclear missiles pointed at it from just a short distance away. The U.S. certainly didn’t like it (just as Russia wouldn’t like it if U.S. or NATO nuclear missiles were installed in Ukraine). And so, JFK demanded that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. If Russia had refused to do so, it is a virtual certainty that JFK would have ordered an attack on the missiles and an invasion of Cuba, both of which the Pentagon and the CIA were demanding. The result would have been World War III.

To resolve the crisis, Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles, and the U.S. committed to not invade Cuba again. It’s an agreement that has been honored for more than 60 years.

Of course, Trump, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA can argue that the agreement, which they considered was a betrayal of America and a grave threat to U.S. “national security” was not a treaty. That’s true. It was simply an oral agreement — a handshake, if you will. Nonetheless, an agreement is an agreement. There was no time limit on the agreement, which meant that it would exist into perpetuity. The Russians would not reinstall their nuclear missiles and the United States would not invade Cuba again.

If Trump and U.S. national-security establishment decide to break JFK’s agreement, undoubtedly the Russians will not retaliate. But it will be another reason why people around the world understand that the United States can never be trusted to keep its word.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:55

Majority Of Arrested ICE Protesters At Newark's Delaney Hall Came From Outside New Jersey

Arrest records from recent demonstrations outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention facility show that many of those taken into custody were not New Jersey residents, according to The New York Post. According to information reviewed by The Post, only a small number of the arrested individuals were from the state, while others had traveled from locations including Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York.

The arrests stemmed from a series of confrontations between protesters and law enforcement that took place during ongoing demonstrations at the facility. Authorities accused some participants of offenses such as damaging property, obstructing access to the detention center, failing to disperse, and assaulting federal officers. The demonstrations have drawn national attention as activists continue to challenge immigration enforcement policies and conditions at the facility.

Observers critical of the protests argue that the presence of participants from across the country suggests a coordinated effort rather than a purely local movement. They point to the involvement of activist organizations that have publicly campaigned against Delaney Hall and called for broader changes to federal immigration enforcement. Some arrested individuals were linked through social media activity to groups that have promoted protests at the site and encouraged supporters to participate.

The Post notes that among those arrested were people from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds, including students, artists, healthcare professionals, and longtime activists. Publicly available information and social media profiles indicate that several had previously participated in political or social justice campaigns on issues ranging from climate activism to racial justice and immigration reform.

One organization frequently mentioned in connection with the demonstrations is the Sunrise Movement, a progressive activist group that has publicized its involvement in actions outside Delaney Hall. The group has shared updates, photos, and videos from the protests on social media and has described its organizers as being actively engaged at the site for an extended period.

Supporters of the demonstrations maintain that the protests are a response to concerns about the treatment of detainees and conditions inside the facility. Critics, however, contend that the protests have become increasingly confrontational and have been supported by well-funded activist networks capable of mobilizing participants from outside the region.

The standoff at Delaney Hall has continued for weeks, with repeated clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. As investigations and legal proceedings move forward, the arrests have become part of a broader debate over immigration policy, protest tactics, and the role of national activist organizations in local political conflicts.

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

Radical Woke Mount Sinai Hospital Exposed: DEI, Child Sex Changes & Epstein Ties Prioritized Over Patients

Authored by Tate Rosentreter via The Center Square;

Consumer protection organization Consumers’ Research began a campaign Monday highlighting New York City-based nonprofit Mount Sinai Hospital's prioritization of what Consumers' calls the hospital's woke and political ideology as well as having what it says are questionable partnerships such as ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “Mount Sinai is another example of a nonprofit hospital that has seemingly abandoned its core mission of patient care in favor of a radical political agenda.”

“The hospital has a history of prioritizing radical causes like DEI, child sex-change procedures, and climate activism, and has maintained a deeply troubling and disturbing relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, accepting donations and giving him special access to doctors and hospital resources,” Hild said.

“This behavior by nonprofit health systems like Mount Sinai should be investigated for supporting these political agendas at taxpayers' expense,” Hild said.

Hild told The Center Square that “Consumers’ Research is exposing nonprofit hospitals for using taxpayer dollars and federal revenue streams and benefits to put politics over patients.”

“Taxpayers and elected officials need to be aware that health systems are misusing their resources and these practices need to be examined by lawmakers,” Hild said.

Mount Sinai media relations has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

Included in Consumers’ Research’s campaign are a mobile billboard circling the Mount Sinai campus, a website, and “targeted digital around Capitol Hill.”

The mobile billboard displays statements such as Mount Sinai “performed over 130 sex change procedures on kids,” “provides transgender resources for 8-year-olds,” and has ties to Epstein.

Consumers’ Research’s website campaign goes further in depth, showcasing the hospital’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, transgender ideology promotion, climate activism and “questionable partnerships.”

According to the campaign, Mount Sinai operates an Office for Health Data, Outcomes, and Engagement Strategy “to promote health equity cultural awareness.”

Additionally, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Institute for Health Equity Research “hosted ‘conversations on health equity,’” the campaign revealed.

As far as promoting transgender ideology goes, Mount Sinai’s Keith Haring Youth Gender Center provides care for “transgender and gender diverse youth.

Additionally, the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery “offers hormone therapy, transgender intervention surgeries, and other services for transgender patients,” Consumers’ Research campaign stated, while transgender resources are provided by Mount Sinai to children “as young as 8-years-old.”

From 2019 to 2023, Mount Sinai performed 139 sex change interventions on minors, according to Do No Harm’s database and Consumers’ Research’s campaign.

As mentioned, Mount Sinai is also involved in climate activism with a statement on its webpage entitled “Sustain Mount Sinai” stating: “Reducing our carbon footprint is not just an operational goal; it is an essential part of building a healthier future.”

Consumers’ Research campaign also outlines Mount Sinai’s “concerning, longstanding” relationship with convicted sex offender Epstein, beginning in 2008 when “after his sex crime conviction, Epstein donated at least $250,000 to Mount Sinai and sponsored various events and projects.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:05

Iranian Tankers Cross US Naval Blockade After Trump Deal Allows Iran To Restart Oil Sales

The first Iranian ships crossed the area of the US naval blockade without obstruction after a memorandum of understanding was reached to end the war between Washington and Tehran, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Tuesday.

At least three Iranian oil tankers and two cargo ships carrying essential goods broke through the US naval blockade following an accord between the countries. 

A large Iranian VLCC and another vessel used to transport livestock moved from open waters toward Iranian ports, the agency said. Another Iranian tanker carrying oil also crossed the Gulf of Oman toward its designated export port, Fars said, without providing further details about the destination.

BREAKING: CRUDE OIL DEPARTS IRAN FOLLOWING A TWO MONTH LONG NAVY BLOCKADE

According to AIS data which we corroborated yesterday (2026-06-15) by satellite imagery, at least two National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) VLCC supertankers named DIONA (9569695) and HERO2 (9362073) have… pic.twitter.com/tSesQTcC6K

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) June 16, 2026

The crossing followed a WSJ report that under the agreement expected to formally end the war between the United States and Iran on Friday, Tehran would be allowed to immediately resume oil and fuel sales. The sanctions relief takes effect as soon as the agreement is signed and extends beyond crude exports to include the banking, shipping, and insurance services needed to move those barrels to market.

That detail may prove to be one of the most consequential parts of the entire agreement.

Oil sanctions are only effective if buyers can't pay, tankers can't ship, and insurers won't touch the cargo. By waiving restrictions across the entire supply chain, Washington is effectively giving Iran access to international energy markets from day one rather than months down the road, according to OilPrice.com.

Iran holds some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves and was producing well over 3 million barrels per day before the conflict. Much of that production has remained constrained by sanctions, infrastructure limitations, and wartime disruptions. The prospect of Iranian barrels returning to global markets in meaningful volumes could reshape supply expectations just as consumers and governments remain focused on energy security after months of turmoil in the Middle East.

The move also marks a striking shift in U.S. policy. Washington spent years tightening restrictions on Iran's energy sector. Now, the Trump administration appears prepared to use oil revenues as a financial incentive to secure a lasting end to the conflict.

The oil could potentially start flowing the moment the ink dries without the expected waiting period.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:40

15 Tied To Antifa Charged With Violently Interfering With ICE Operations In Minnesota

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

Fifteen suspects are accused of conspiring with two Minneapolis-based Antifa groups to violently interfere with federal immigration enforcement, authorities announced on Tuesday. 

Daniel Rosen, who heads the U.S. attorney’s office for Minnesota, told reporters at his Minneapolis headquarters on June 16 that agents arrested 12 of the 15 suspects; one was already in custody for other offenses.

Two defendants remain at large. Rosen said both are aware that federal agents are seeking them in connection with an indictment that was unsealed just before the news conference.

“We expect they will surrender peacefully,” he said.

The 15 suspects—all from Minnesota—are charged with conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, interstate threats, interstate stalking, assault on a federal officer, and destruction of government property.

“These defendants have been charged not for what they said, but for what they did. They all joined an agreement, a conspiracy to interfere with lawful immigration enforcement operations,” Rosen said.

“The conspiracy was not to interfere by their voice, but to do it by force. That’s a crime, and it will not be tolerated in the United States.”

A group called “Direct Action Minnesota” is tied to many of the allegations, Rosen said, while another group, Black Cat Workers Collective, is connected to other allegations

The new cases are part of a “broad federal effort to address organized lawless behavior,” he said.

Michael McCarthy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, said the announcement followed “a thorough and months-long investigation into a deeply concerning trend—coordinated violence targeting federal law enforcement officers and facilities.”

“There is a clear line that cannot be crossed” between peaceful protesting and violence, he said, adding, “some groups have crossed that line.”

He noted that many of the violent actions opposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

The new charges were filed months after President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it was probing Antifa groups.

After some reporters questioned whether the new Antifa-related cases would hold up in court, given that a number of other cases involving anti-ICE activists have been dismissed, Rosen replied: “You watch how this case plays out; you watch how this evidence plays out, and the evidence will prove it all out.”

Antifa, short for “antifascist,” is a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals. Antifa adherents label their enemies as “fascists” and often say they will use “any means necessary” to stop people from spreading messages they oppose.

Trump had issued a directive to disrupt and dismantle Antifa, which he designated a “domestic terrorist organization” in September 2025. The following month, Trump held a roundtable discussion with journalists and commentators who alleged that Antifa targeted them with threats or violence. 

Minnesota became a hotbed of resistance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sometimes involving Antifa, after federal agencies ramped up immigration enforcement in that state. That happened partly in response to accusations that networks of immigrants were defrauding government programs on a large scale.

In two separate January incidents, ICE opponents Renee Good and Alex Pretti were fatally shot by federal agents during protests, but there was no reported Antifa connection to either of those shootings. Rosen said investigations into both shootings are ongoing.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:15

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Trump's First-Term Tariff On China

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 declined to hear a legal challenge to tariffs imposed on Chinese imports by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term in 2018.

The decision follows an appeal by HMTX Industries and other businesses after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit last year upheld the tariffs, which Trump previously imposed on Chinese goods under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in response to China’s unfair trade practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.

The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to review the ruling, but the high court denied the request on June 15, keeping the tariffs in place. The justices did not provide any explanation for the decision.

According to a Feb. 20 petition filed by the importers, the first Trump administration imposed an initial round of tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports under Section 301 of the Trade Act.

The administration later expanded the tariffs in response to China’s retaliatory tariff measures by invoking Section 307 of the Trade Act, which allows the president to modify existing tariffs to address unfair trade practices.

“But Congress nowhere gave USTR [Office of the United States Trade Representative] the vast power to engage in an open-ended trade war under that modest modification provision. Yet that is precisely what happened here,” the importers said.

“That USTR’s ‘modification’ continues to impose billions of dollars in taxes on the American public each month is enough to warrant this court’s review.”

In a May filing, the administration argued that the case did not merit Supreme Court review and said the law allows the USTR to modify tariffs as long as the changes “are not radically transformative.”

“Accordingly, modifications imposed under Section 307(a) necessarily comport with the Act’s scheme because they are limited to actions appropriate to address the same problem that the original Section 301 actions addressed, as that problem has evolved over time,” it stated.

After taking office for a second term last year, Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on trading partners, citing the need to regulate international transactions to respond to an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to national security.

The Supreme Court struck down the tariffs in February, ruling that the IEEPA does not clearly authorize the president to impose tariffs.

The Trump administration has been looking at alternative legal avenues following the Supreme Court ruling.

USTR Jamieson Greer said on Feb. 20 that his office would launch new Section 301 investigations covering most major trading partners.

The new trade investigations will cover various areas, including industrial excess capacity, forced labor, pharmaceutical pricing practices, discrimination against U.S. technology companies and digital goods and services, digital services taxes, and ocean pollution.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 18:25

Wyoming And Spokane Data Center Pauses Show NIMBY Fury Has Shifted From Nuclear To AI

The latest cracks in the data center buildout story arrived this month from opposite ends of the energy-rich West. Crusoe paused development activities on its 1.8 GW “Project Jade” campus near Cheyenne, Wyoming, at the explicit request of its customer. 

Just days later, Avista announced it was pausing processing of a 500 MW data center request in Spokane County after more than 5,000 community complaints, a proposed city council moratorium, and concerns over ratepayer costs and legacy contamination at the former Kaiser Aluminum smelter site.

This all fits the pattern we’ve documented for over a year with proposed US data center capacity colliding with local political reality, transmission bottlenecks, and raw NIMBY resistance that now appears more intense than the peak opposition nuclear power plants faced in prior decades.

71% of Americans oppose construction of an AI data center in their local area, with 48% strongly opposed. 

By comparison, opposition to a nuclear plant in the same backyard stands at 53%. 

Data centers have managed to poll worse on local acceptance than nuclear facilities ever did at the height of their controversy. 

We have been pounding the table on this long enough that we're frankly surprised the table is still standing. Half of the US data center capacity originally slated to begin operations in 2026 faces delays or outright cancellation, according to Sightline Climate analysis we covered in April.

Contested projects are seeing roughly 40% cancellation rates in some analyses. Eminent domain fights over transmission lines have erupted in Maryland, Georgia, and elsewhere. Brookfield-backed Compass withdrew from a major Northern Virginia corridor. Community revolts have already killed or delayed billions in projects from Texas to the Midwest. 

The Avista and Crusoe cases simply add fresh, high-profile confirmation that even brownfield sites with existing power infrastructure and willing utilities are not immune.

The investment implications for the nuclear sector are direct and near-term negative for sentiment, even if the long-term logic remains intact. The explosive AI-driven power demand narrative that helped lift names such as Oklo (OKLO), NuScale (SMR), NANO Nuclear (NNE), Cameco (CCJ), and the broader sector via URA, NLR, and NUKZ, has always rested on the assumption that hyperscale load growth would translate into contracted, financeable nuclear capacity on accelerated timelines. 

When marquee data center campuses pause or reconfigure, that assumption gets stress-tested. Equity volatility in the nuclear complex has reflected exactly this uncertainty with profit-taking and narrative recalibration whenever friction in the demand side becomes visible.

None of this changes the structural math. The US still adds essentially zero new large reactors while China commissions multiple units per year. AI training and inference loads are real and growing. But the notion that private capital and hyperscaler demand alone would bulldoze through local opposition and grid constraints was always optimistic. 

These latest pauses demonstrate that the problem is not unique to nuclear permitting. It is a systemic feature of American infrastructure development in the current political and regulatory environment.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 18:00

SPLC Official Shared Bank Accounts With Neo-Nazi Informant

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

The New York Post reported on Tuesday the identity of the Southern Poverty Law Center official who, according to court records, was in a relationship with one of the SPLC’s paid neo-Nazi informants.

According to the Post, the SPLC official is Heidi Beirich, who was the group’s director of intelligence between 2012 and 2019. The Post noted that the “Employee-2” named in the Justice Department’s indictment matches Beirich’s profile.

“One figure, referred to as ‘Employee-2’ in the indictment is described as a ‘person who would become Director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project,’” the Post noted.

“It also describes how ‘Employee-2’ wrote an article based on material stolen from National Alliance headquarters in 2014 and then paid off an informant to take the blame for the robbery.”

According to the DOJ, Employee-2 was in a relationship with an SPLC informant who infiltrated the neo-Nazi organization National Alliance.

The informant has yet to be identified. He’s referred to in the indictment as “F-9.”

SPLC boss funneled $1.2 million to lover in neo-Nazi group — pair even had joint bank account https://t.co/NiRLOt5bhC via @nypost

— Joel Pollak (@joelpollak) June 16, 2026

The DOJ indictment says F-9 and Employee-2 shared a house and two bank accounts.

“Between 2015 and 2021, approximately $140,000 in donors’ money flowed from the SPLC operating account … and was ultimately deposited into the joint bank accounts held by F-9 and [Beirich],” court records state.

“This amounted to approximately 66% of all money ever deposited into their joint bank accounts. [Beirich] then used donors’ money to pay the couple’s personal living expenses.”

The DOJ also said F-9 stole 25 boxes of documents from the National Alliance. The Post noted that Beirich wrote an article allegedly based on the stolen materials in 2015.

Another informant was paid to take the blame for F-9’s theft. In April, Headline USA revealed the likely identity of that informant, who’s referred to as ‘F-39’ in the indictment. He is likely former National Alliance accountant Randolph Dilloway. The indictment says F-39 was paid $6,000 to take the blame for F-9’s theft. That information aligns with a lawsuit from around that time accusing Dilloway of being paid over $5,000 by the SPLC to steal documents.

The Post said Beirich and the SPLC did not respond to requests for comment.

The SPLC has a pending motion to dismiss the DOJ’s indictment, arguing that the case is one of vindictive prosecution.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:40

Record Percentage Of Central Banks Expect Gold Reserves To Increase In Next 12 Months

Today, the World Gold Council released their 2026 Central Bank Gold Reserves Survey. Amongst the insights, here is the punchline: a record 45% of respondents expect their own gold reserves will increase over the next 12 months

Central banks have accumulated an average of 1,000t of gold over the past four years, up significantly from the 500t average over the preceding decade. This marked acceleration in the pace of accumulation has occurred against a backdrop of geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which has clouded the outlook for reserve managers.

The WGC's 2026 Central Bank Gold Reserves (CBGR) survey was conducted between 5 February and 19 May. With the majority of responses coming in after the start of the Middle East conflict, this year’s survey contains insights on how central bankers view gold in the light of ongoing geopolitical turmoil. The sample is highly representative of the overall central bank community, both geographically and in terms of gold owned. This robust participation is a powerful signal of engagement with gold amongst the central banking community. 

Here are the key highlights:

Similar to findings from previous surveys, central banks continue to hold favorable expectations on gold. Respondents overwhelmingly (89%) believe that global central bank gold reserves will increase over the next 12 months.

As noted above, this year, a record 45% of respondents expect their own gold reserves will also increase over the same period. The majority of the remaining respondents indicated they expect no change while 1% expect their institution’s gold reserves to decrease (hello, Turkey).

Gold’s performance during times of crisis, portfolio diversification and inflation hedging are some of the key factors for central banks to hold gold. In addition, gold as a geopolitical risk hedge and gold as part of a reserve diversification policy also feature as key reasons for increasing allocations to gold.

The majority of respondents (74%) see moderate or significantly lower US dollar holdings within global reserves over the next five years. Respondents also believe that the share of other currencies, such as the euro and renminbi will remain unchanged over the same period, while gold holdings will increase.

This year’s survey asked respondents how they would fund their new gold purchases. Half of respondents indicated through a domestic purchase program in local currency, while 38% indicated through selling existing reserve assets.

The Bank of England remains the most popular vaulting location among respondents at 57%, though central banks continue to diversify their storage across multiple locations. Domestic storage came in second at 49%, followed by the Bank for International Settlements at 16% (a slight uptick from last year). The Swiss National Bank saw a notable decline in preference, dropping to 6% from 12% in 2025.

A notable increase in changes to vaulting locations was observed in this year’s survey, with 9% saying they have increased domestic storage and 10% saying they have diversified overseas storage locations in the past 12 months, compared with 5% and 2% respectively in last year’s survey. The trend is also observed in future plans for vaulting, with 7% saying they plan to increase domestic storage and 9% saying they plan to diversify overseas storage locations in the coming 12 months. 

Summary:

This year’s survey reinforces the trend: central banks remain very positive on gold, highlighting its significance amid a volatile geopolitical and economic environment

The survey shows a continuation of the trend uncovered in previous years: central banks see gold making up a growing share of their reserve portfolios. 84% of respondents believe that gold will hold a (moderately or significantly) higher share of total reserves five years from now, up from 76% last year. Responses were also fairly consistent between central banks in advanced economies and EMDE (emerging markets and developing economies), with the majority anticipating that the proportion of total reserves held in gold would be moderately higher in five years’ time (Chart 1). Respondents were less sanguine on the US dollar. While it maintains its position as the dominant global reserve currency, data from the IMF’s Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) shows that its share has been on a gradual decline. And respondents believe this trend will continue, with 74% expecting its share to be lower five years from now (Chart 2, p4). Both advanced economy and EMDE responses were aligned in this view.

When asked about expectations for how global central bank gold reserves will change over the next 12 months, respondents were almost unanimous, with 89% of respondents believing that official gold reserves will continue to increase (Chart 3). This sentiment was consistent across both advanced economy and EMDE respondents. It should be noted that 11% of central banks believe that gold’s proportion of total reserves would remain unchanged, up from 5% last year.  In addition, 45% of respondents thought that their own institution’s gold reserves would rise over the next year, broadly in line with last year’s finding (43%).

Most respondents did not expect their gold reserves to change in the next 12 months. This marks a new record high in the proportion of central banks expecting to add gold to their own reserves with EMDE banks continuing to lead their advanced economy counterparts. Among EMDE respondents around half thought that their own gold reserves would increase in the next 12 months, while the other half anticipated they would remain unchanged.

The findings highlight that gold sentiment within the central banking community remains upbeat. Expectations point to continued gold buying over the next 12 months, reflecting sustained confidence in gold’s strategic role amid evolving geopolitical and macroeconomic dynamics.

More in the full survey available here for subs.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:20

"By Any Means Necessary": Candidate Struck From Alaska Ballot Over Alleged Democratic Dirty Trick

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is an interesting controversy in Alaska where an election official just disqualified a candidate over his name. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) is in what is considered a close race with Democratic former Rep. Mary Peltola. The seat is viewed as critical to the Democrats' retaking power. The race was thrown into disarray when a retired teacher named Dan Sullivan, who had no connection to the GOP but did have connections to Democratic operatives, got on the ballot.

The alleged dirty trick by Democratic and Peltola supporters would have split Sullivan's vote through sheer confusion. Division of Elections Director Carol Beecher disqualified Dan J. Sullivan, putting an end to it this week.

The suspected dirty trick comes at a time when Democratic candidates and pundits are calling for winning back power "by any means necessary."

It could create an interesting appeal if teacher Sullivan claims that this is just a colossal coincidence or that he has a right to be a vehicle for electoral confusion.

This is an old trick employed by other Democratic candidates in history, including J.F. Kennedy. In Kennedy's first run for Congress in 1946 in Boston, he was up against Boston City Councilor Joe Russo in the primary. The district was heavily Irish and Italian. Kennedy's father, Joe, allegedly paid another Joseph Russo, a custodian, to run to divide the Italian vote through confusion.

In 2000, Republicans faced similar allegations when the House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt found himself running against Richard A. Gebhardt.

Beecher concluded that Dan J. Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in the same dirty trick to try to seize the seat. In a letter this week, she concluded that the teacher's candidacy was "filed with a purpose to confuse or mislead and to thereby compromise the ballot's fairness or neutrality," in a letter published Monday.

Under Alaska's ranked-choice voting system, Dan J. Sullivan could have advanced to the general election among the top four vote-getters - rigging the result for Peltola.

Beecher noted several indicators that teacher Sullivan and the Democrats were engaged in a dishonest campaign of confusion. She noted that he voted under the name Daniel J. Sullivan, Jr., but requested to appear on the ballot as Dan Sullivan - making him identical to the incumbent. He even tried to register using the initial "S" once, which would have matched the senator.

She also noted that Dan J. Sullivan had not registered as a Republican before launching his Senate campaign and that he created a new website that used a "color scheme and overall theme" similar to the incumbent's campaign materials.

She also noted his connection to Amber Lee, an Alaska Democratic consultant and past supporter of Peltola.

If true, it is a disgraceful role played by this retired teacher and Democratic operatives. While claiming to be defending democracy, Democratic activists and leaders often use the most anti-democratic measures of ballot cleansing or, in this case, ballot confusion.

The question is the role of Peltola, the DNC, and the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee in encouraging this dirty trick in Alaska. That would require an inquisitive, independent national media.

Once again, from Alaska to Maine, Democrats may have to ask, "Are we the baddies?"

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 17:00

MLB Scolds Players Who Wrote Bible Verses On Pride Night Uniforms

Major League Baseball on Monday issued a warning to three players who represent the gayest city in America, but who dared to write references to a biblical passage on their Pride Night uniforms. The three San Francisco Giants teamed up for the subtle gesture at Friday night's home game, which they lost 5-1 to the visiting Chicago Cubs.  

“The writing on the cap violates our rules and, consistent with normal practice, we have warned the players about future violations,” MLB chief communication officer Pat Courtney told Outsports, which bills itself as "your home for all things LGBTQ+ sports." (Um... all things???)  Outsports said the players "disgraced themselves" and accused them of "weaponing [sic] the Pride rainbow and attacking the LGBTQ community."

In 2026, only the Texas Rangers are abstaining from Pride Night observations. The Giants' Pride Night featured the national anthem being performed by members of an "LGBTQ-affirming nondenominational church," and homosexual married couples renewing their vows under the approving eye of a drag queen. Three Giants pitchers had their own idea for the festivities.

Landen Roupp wrote "Genesis 9:12-16" on the Pride Night cap issued to players by the San Francisco Giants

Starter Landen Roupp and relievers JT Brubaker and Ryan Walker wrote "Genesis 9:11-16" next to the rainbow "SF" on the special hats issued for the occasion. Within those verses, God promises he'll never again unleash a mass homicide in the form of a flood, as he did in the story of Noah, and he says the rainbow will serve as a recurring reminder of that commitment: 

"And God said, 'This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth."

After the game, Roupp told reporters he wanted to lead fans to "God's covenant and the promise that He makes to us," adding, "There's no hate at all. It’s just what I stand for, and what I stand in. I believe in God...As a believer, I would push [LGBTQ people] to read the Bible." A fourth Giant, Sam Hentges, refused to wear the cap at all, and said, "It’s just something that I feel like I was forced to support, when I don't morally support it." 

San Francisco Chronicle sports columnist Ann Killon railed against the pitchers for "defacing" their uniforms with...a bible verse. "On a night that was supposed to be about inclusion, they hijacked the event for their own purposes. In the name of Christianity, they took a decidedly un-Christian stance of exclusion and judgment." Sounds like Killon's version of inclusion has no room for Christians. 

The Giants pitchers didn't pioneer the use of the Genesis passage to "re-claim" the rainbow as a religious symbol. The verses have been used that way for some 20 years or more, as evidenced by a 2007 article, "Taking Back the Rainbow," which lamented that, "sadly, the colors of the rainbow are...used on a flag for the gay and lesbian movement."

The Dodgers have repeatedly invited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to participate in Pride Night festivities

Last June, the Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw stirred controversy by writing the same verse-reference on his cap. In his biography, Kershaw explained his thinking: 

“I put a lot of thought into it, and talked to a lot of different people...I just came to the conclusion that the Dodgers really put us in a horrible position. It’s not an LGBT issue. It’s just, like, [the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence are] pretty rough. And I’m all for funny, and satire, but that goes way beyond it. So I did feel like I needed to say something...

If you ever doubted the fading US empire is wading ever deeper into Caligula levels of depravity that targets everyone in our society, the Dodgers' embrace of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence at Pride Night observations helps provide clarity. The fiendish-looking group of drag queens wears nun garb and makes vulgar mockeries of Roman Catholicism, Christianity and traditional values, adopting names like "Sister Anita Blowjob" and "Sister GladAss of the Joyous Reserectum." 

Let's be thankful that players like the quartet of Giants, the Dodgers' Clayton Kershaw and others are pushing back against LGBTQ being force-fed to people who just want to watch a baseball game. 

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

Is California Reaching Critical Mass?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

By any measure, California is a failed state—and a national embarrassment.

• Taxes? It has the highest income and gas taxes in the nation.

• Roads? A Reason Foundation survey ranks it 49th among the states.

• Mass flight? Between 250,000 and 350,000 more Californians leave the state than move in each year. Housing, gas, insurance, and electricity prices? The highest in the continental U.S.

• Illegal aliens, the poor, the homeless, the foreign-born, and welfare recipients? The largest numbers in the U.S.

• Public K–12 schools? Test scores in the bottom quartile.

• Poverty? Twenty percent live below the poverty line.

So, what happened to the nation’s most richly naturally endowed—and once best governed—state?

The Left took total control—after millions of the embattled middle class fled.

Millions more impoverished immigrants, legal and illegal, took their place.

Left-wing Silicon Valley spawned some of the wealthiest elite liberal enclaves in the world.

The result was a neo-feudal society that was hardly democratic.

Millions of subsidized poor compose the bottom.

A beleaguered middle continues to shrink.

An ultra-rich apparat of left-wing coastal professionals and investors rules from the top.

As upper-bracket taxpayers fled, taxes rose on those who remained to fund expanding entitlements for newly arrived poor would-be residents. In turn, even more of the middle class left.

The remaining pyramidal economic structure ensured a Democratic monopoly—further entrenched by changing balloting laws, gerrymandering voting districts, vote harvesting, fueling public employee unions, and ignoring or undermining popular referenda.

In 2014, Californians voted for Proposition 1, a $7.5 billion water bond designed to solve the state’s chronic water storage deficit.

Included was $2.7 billion specifically designated for new reservoirs, as the last major reservoir had been built in 1980, when California had roughly half its current population.

Despite the people’s vote, bureaucracies, elected officials, and green activists blocked all new reservoir construction.

Adding insult to injury, Governor Gavin Newsom instead used $250 million from the Proposition 1 fund to blow up four dams on the Klamath River. They had once provided storage, electrical generation, recreation, and flood control.

Californians have twice voted in referenda (for Proposition 209 and against Proposition 16) to bar the use of racial preferences for contracting, admissions, and promotion in public institutions.

Most public universities simply ignored the law. They continued their “diversity” quotas under new names, relying on left-wing elected officials and judges to ignore again the will of the people.

Preferential admissions, along with racially segregated dorms and graduation ceremonies, continued under euphemisms and denials. “Theme” houses, “affinity” graduations, and “safe spaces” practice “affirmative” discrimination.

California voters in 2008 passed Proposition 11 to stop political gerrymandering by creating a supposedly nonpartisan state redistricting commission of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four Independents. Two years later, the commission took over redrawing congressional districts as well.

But Democratic lobbyists and lawyers sabotaged the goal of disinterested redistricting according to population and geography. Instead, racial preferences and the interests of the Democratic majority of incumbents prevailed to warp the intent of the voters.

Although Republicans usually achieved nearly 40 percent of the California vote in national elections, two decades later there were only seven Republicans in the 52-person congressional delegation, or a mere 13 percent of the state’s representatives.

But even that tiny contingent was considered too generous by the Left. Thus, in 2026, it will likely be further redistricted down to four or five seats.

The balloting mess in the recent Los Angeles mayoral race further reminds the nation and the world just how dysfunctional and anti-democratic California has become.

Democrats warp elections without the need for the old Chicago way of outright ballot theft or destruction. Instead, they do so in a “legal” manner by passing insane laws that ensure fraud and Democratic victories.

The winners in the strange jungle primaries—usually both Democrats—were not announced until a week after the polls closed. One of the eventual winners in mayoral race, the socialist Nithya Raman, had already given her teary concession speech after coming in well back at third on election night.

The Republican Spencer Pratt was comfortably ahead of her in second place on Election Day—only to lose, as expected, when large numbers of late ballots that broke roughly 90 percent Democratic were counted.

Remember, every registered voter is sent a mail-in ballot. If it is postmarked on election day, it can arrive at vote centers up to seven days after the election.

No one really knows whether the ballots are mailed to the dead, to former or nonexistent addresses, or to legally eligible voters—by design. In 2024, when losing presidential candidate Kamala Harris won the state by 20 points, only 0.09 percent of all ballots cast were rejected.

Anyone can register and receive a provisional ballot on the same day.

Ballot harvesting and ballot curing are legal.

Campaign operatives can round up voters, gather their ballots, and deliver them en masse to a voting center.

They can register anyone to vote, provide a ballot, and then deposit it immediately afterwards.

There is no requirement to provide proof of U.S. citizenship to get a driver’s license. Yet a license is not even needed to register.

Any credit card without a picture suffices.

And it gets worse still.

If the potential voter has no license, no Social Security number, no proof of U.S. citizenship, and no credit cards, he still will be registered—once harvesters provide him with a “unique identifier” number.

He can then vote that very day without any ID at all.

If, in California, you claim you are illiterate and cannot write your name—no problem.

You simply make a mark—anything from an X to a happy face. No one asks whether an illiterate can read the names on the ballot.

Then your handler serves as a “witness” and signs his name. Such witnesses are almost always vote harvesters, and they can sign as many ballots as they wish.

If all that doesn’t work, ballot “curers” can be called in help remedy rejected partisan ballots post facto.

Democrats now rely on the system to ensure supermajorities in both houses of the state legislature, no statewide Republican officeholders, a tiny vestigial Republican congressional contingent, and almost exclusively Democratic-appointed liberal judges.

The more Democrats control the state, the more socialist, anti-democratic—and autocratic—California becomes.

Their gift to the nation is a third-world failed state, now in danger of societal collapse.

• Fires rage—given ideologically driven prohibitions on brush and forest management, cuts in fire departments, and sheer bureaucratic incompetence.

• Multibillion-dollar boondoggle rail projects rust.

• Billions of welfare dollars are stolen with impunity. Illegal aliens who cannot speak or read English are given passes to obtain commercial trucking licenses—as if California’s critical road signs are written in some language other than English.

• A quarter of residents can’t pay their sky-high power bills on time—and correctly assume that the state and the utility companies will mostly foot their delinquent bills.

• Since 2020, over 100,000 criminals have been released early from state prisons—and most have little fear that their present and future crimes will earn them another prison sentence.

• Half the state’s births are paid for through state-supplied welfare coverage.

• And now the homeless without addresses or IDs can determine elections.

In sum, import poverty; romanticize illegal immigration; demonize the middle class; drive out private-sector capital; and exempt elites from the consequences of their own ideology—and you’re left with a state where democracy dies, along with everything else.

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

Semiconductor Stocks Tumble After Microsoft Balks At $3B Oracle Cloud Deal

Chip stocks tumbled even further in late Tuesday trading following a report that Microsoft just walked away from talks with Oracle about leasing the company's cloud infrastructure because of concerns over security and compliance. 

The deal, according to Business Insider, would have been worth over $3 billion - as large Silicon Valley tech companies are running short on computing power (more on that later). 

The plan was to move some Microsoft workloads to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure, but Oracle's public cloud did not have the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP), a standardized security framework that ensures cloud services are secure enough to handle U.S. government data. Oracle was not willing to add this framework, one of the people said. -BI

Oracle has denied the scoop.

"The details mentioned in the article are inaccurate," an spokesperson said, declining to specify the inaccuracies. "Microsoft is both an OCI partner and a customer. We have a tremendously collaborative and fruitful partnership, where we often talk about ways we can expand upon our ongoing work together." 

The report sent Oracle and the semiconductor basket lower in what was already a dismal day for the sector.

Developing...

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 16:00

FBI Raids Soros-Connected Ohio Voter Mobilization Group In Fraud Investigation

Via American Greatness,

Federal investigators executed search warrants at the headquarters of a Soros-aligned voter mobilization organization in Ohio as part of what sources described as an ongoing fraud investigation.

FBI agents searched the offices of the Ohio Organizing Collaborative on June 11 and conducted interviews with members of the organization across the state, according to reports. Some agents reportedly served subpoenas or sought to seize electronic devices during the operation.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter later told CBS News that the federal action was tied to a fraud-related investigation.

The Department of Justice declined to discuss the specifics of the case.

“Search warrants are authorized by a judge and anything said by any organization or others in the media is unfounded speculation, as the target of any investigation is not privy to the search warrant affidavit until after indictment,” a DOJ official told Fox News Digital.

The Ohio Organizing Collaborative is a nonprofit group involved in voter registration and voter mobilization efforts and works closely with Democrats in Ohio. The organization has also played a prominent role in statewide ballot campaigns and referendum efforts.

The investigation is part of the Trump administration’s effort to increase enforcement of election-related laws and allegations of voter fraud.

Tax records show the organization reported more than $10 million in revenue during 2024.

Funding for the group has come from several major Democratic-aligned organizations and labor unions, including entities connected to the Soros family, the New Venture Fund, the Tides Foundation, the American Federation of Teachers and the Service Employees International Union.

According to the report, the Soros family’s Foundation to Promote Open Society provided approximately $1.9 million to the organization between 2019 and 2020.

The Open Society Action Fund later contributed an additional $1 million to a related organization in 2021 and another $1 million in 2023.

The organization has been active in recent Ohio political battles.

It spent $250,000 in 2023 opposing a Republican-backed effort related to abortion policy and another $300,000 the following year opposing a Republican redistricting proposal.

Organization leaders criticized the federal investigation and suggested it was politically motivated.

“How can they distract and intimidate civil rights leaders and voters and community leaders who are helping people get registered to vote, and create a national spectacle about it?” OOC board member Prentiss Haney told MS Now.

“That is the only reason why they would choose to do that, do it now, in the middle of a contested political election in the state. There’s no other reason. They have no evidence of that.”

The group has previously faced scrutiny related to voter registration activities. In 2017, a paid canvasser working with the organization pleaded guilty in connection with a fraudulent voter registration operation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 15:40

Gavin Newsom And The DOJ Probe Opened Under Biden: Behested Payments, Family Nonprofits, & Questions Of Influence

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has launched an aggressive counteroffensive against a federal investigation he calls a politically motivated "fishing expedition" - for a probe which was opened under the Biden adminisgration. 

In a video posted to X and a formal letter to the Department of Justice, Newsom demanded all internal communications since January 2025 that mention him or his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. The Freedom of Information Act request targets top DOJ officials, including former Attorney General Pam Bondi who was dismissed in April 2026, and Acting officials Emil Bove and Todd Blanche. It sets a July 6, 2026 deadline.

Newsom claims federal agents have been questioning family members, friends, and former employees not because a crime has been identified, but because the Trump administration is trying to manufacture one. He attributes the scrutiny to his vocal criticism of President Trump and the possibility that he may run for president in 2028.

The DOJ has not confirmed or commented on the existence or scope of any investigation. What has surfaced publicly points to two tracks: whistleblower allegations concerning Siebel Newsom's taxes and a separate corruption inquiry linked to Newsom's former chief of staff, Dana Williamson.

The Behested Payments Pipeline

At the center of much of the speculation is California's long-standing practice of "behested payments," which are donations that politicians solicit from private interests on behalf of nonprofit organizations. Following 2021 ethics reforms, amounts above $5,000 must be disclosed, yet the rules remain relatively permissive. Critics, including Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton, have called the mechanism "literally corruption in plain sight" and pledged to ban it.

Reporting has established that Newsom directed more than $4.4 million in behested payments to the California Partners Project, a nonprofit founded by his wife that focuses on gender equity. Siebel Newsom takes no salary from the organization, but the donations have been described as essential to keeping its operations running. The group has also collaborated with Siebel Newsom's other nonprofit, The Representation Project, which pays her $150,000 annually, and has worked with her private-sector film production company.

One transaction stands out. The Washington Free Beacon reported that Newsom asked a Native American tribe to make two separate $500,000 donations to the California Partners Project. Contemporaneously, he took that tribe's side in a dispute with another tribe over a proposed casino. The juxtaposition of large directed donations to a family-linked nonprofit coinciding with favorable official action has fueled questions about whether donors with business before the state were effectively paying for access or goodwill through the governor's wife's charity.

What Might the DOJ Be Examining?

Speculation about the investigation's focus falls into several overlapping categories, none of which have been confirmed by federal authorities.

Investigators may be testing whether the pattern of soliciting large donations to a spouse's nonprofit, especially from parties with active regulatory or licensing matters before the state, crosses into improper use of public office. Federal prosecutors have pursued cases involving gratuities or implicit quid pro quos even when no explicit bribe was demanded. The casino-related donations are the most concrete example cited so far.

Even if Siebel Newsom draws no direct salary from the California Partners Project, overlapping activities with her compensated nonprofit and production company could raise questions about whether behested funds ultimately supported her professional ecosystem or lifestyle. Tax whistleblower allegations could relate to how such flows were reported on personal or organizational returns.

The separate corruption line involving former chief of staff Dana Williamson suggests investigators may be mapping relationships, communications, and decision-making processes around the time the behested payments occurred. Former aides often become key witnesses or targets in public corruption probes.

Newsom's team frames all of this as baseless harassment. They note that no charges have been filed, that the investigation appears to rely heavily on interviews rather than documentary smoking guns, and that the timing aligns with Newsom's rising national profile as a Trump critic and potential 2028 contender. The sweeping FOIA request itself functions as both a transparency demand and a political weapon intended to expose internal deliberations, force the administration to justify its actions, and rally supporters around a "witch hunt" narrative.

Political and Legal Stakes

The coming weeks will test both the durability of Newsom's counteroffensive and the substance behind the reported probe. If the DOJ produces evidence of systematic steering of donor money to family-controlled entities in exchange for official acts, it could seriously damage Newsom's national ambitions. If the investigation yields little beyond aggressive but legal fundraising practices common in California politics, Newsom will likely portray the entire episode as further proof of Trump-era weaponization of federal law enforcement.

Behested payments occupy a gray zone: legal under current California rules, yet ethically fraught when the ultimate beneficiary is the soliciting politician's spouse and when donors have simultaneous business before the state. Whether that gray zone contains federal crimes remains the open question the DOJ appears to be probing.

For now, both sides are playing to their audiences, as usual.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 15:20

The post Low-IQ Exporters Don’t Know to Eat the Tariffs: Non-Fuel Import Prices Up 3.7% appeared first on CEPR.

San Francisco Judge Dismisses xAI Trade Secret Lawsuit Against OpenAI

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge dismissed a trade secret lawsuit filed by Elon Musk’s xAI against OpenAI, ruling that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the competing artificial intelligence company improperly obtained confidential information.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued the order Monday in San Francisco, dismissing the case with prejudice, resulting in xAI being unable to refile an amended version of the complaint based on the same arguments.

Lin found that xAI did not make clear that OpenAI led former senior engineer Xuechen Li to reveal trade secrets or that OpenAI engineers had knowledge.

The claims were based on Li’s departure from xAI and related discussions during his recruitment with OpenAI.

The judge noted that requesting a job candidate’s prior work experience is standard practice during the recruitment phase and that one ⁠could not infer that that itself constituted an improper solicitation of confidential material.

“To hold otherwise would potentially expose employers to liability any time they inquire about a candidate’s past work,” Lin wrote.

The lawsuit, first brought in September 2025, alleged that OpenAI misappropriated trade secrets tied to chatbot development, such as source code and other proprietary details linked to xAI’s Grok system.

An earlier version of the complaint was dismissed in February 2026, with the amended filing centering primarily on a presentation Li gave about his prior Grok-related work.

OpenAI has maintained that Li never ended up working for the company and never provided it with any xAI trade secrets. In papers favoring the dismissal of the case, OpenAI’s lawyers criticized xAI, stating, “OpenAI does not need or want anyone’s trade secrets, especially not from xAI, which is failing in the marketplace and hemorrhaging talent.”

xAI and OpenAI did not immediately return a request for comment.

xAI has also brought a separate action against Li, who has denied any impropriety.

The court’s decision curtails xAI’s ability to pursue claims over recruitment discussions and the engineer’s presentation detailing his previous experience. Due to the decision being made with prejudice, any future efforts to pursue similar allegations centering on the same facts would run into procedural blocks.

The dismissal marks Musk’s second legal loss involving OpenAI in roughly a month.

On May 18, a jury threw out a separate $150 billion lawsuit in which Musk, who co-founded OpenAI alongside Altman and others in 2015, alleged that OpenAI and Altman, its chief executive, abandoned the company’s original nonprofit mission.

During the trial, Altman countered that he had never promised to keep OpenAI a nonprofit forever.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concurred with the jury’s decision at the time.

“There’s a substantial amount of evidence to support the jury’s finding, which is why I was prepared to dismiss on the spot,” she said.

After leaving OpenAI, Musk started his own AI project, xAI, which is a direct competitor with OpenAI and other players in the field.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 15:00

Thune Signals Senate Will Pursue Stand-Alone FISA Renewal Despite Trump's Demands

Via American Greatness,

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, (R-SD,) said Monday that Senate Republicans are moving forward with plans to renew a key federal surveillance authority as a stand-alone measure, despite President Donald Trump’s insistence that it be tied to election legislation.

Thune told reporters the Senate is working to revive Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expired over the weekend after Congress failed to extend it before a deadline.

“We will try and move 702 as soon as we feel like we have the votes to do it,” Thune said.

The Senate majority leader said lawmakers are counting votes and intend to bring the measure to the floor once sufficient support exists.

While we can’t know the consequences of Democrats’ decision to allow FISA to go dark, we do know it is almost certainly putting our nation at greater risk.

I hope that in the coming days, my Democrat colleagues will rethink their decision to take this program hostage and will… pic.twitter.com/7xhbpjzpwn

— Leader John Thune (@LeaderJohnThune) June 15, 2026

Section 702 allows U.S. intelligence agencies to collect communications involving foreign targets located outside the United States without obtaining traditional warrants. Advocates of the authority argue it is an important national security tool.

Thune pointed to previous comments from a senior Democrat from New Mexico in support of the surveillance program.

“From the senior Democrat from New Mexico, and I quote again. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I have learned the vital role that FISA’s Section 702 authority plays in bolstering our nation’s ability to effectively fight terrorism, disrupt foreign cyberattacks, impede drug trafficking, and protect U.S. troops,” Thune said.

Trump has urged Congress to attach the SAVE America Act to any renewal of Section 702. The voter identification bill has stalled in the Senate despite calls from supporters to change Senate rules and bypass the chamber’s 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Thune said linking the two measures would be difficult because the SAVE America Act does not currently have enough support to pass as part of the surveillance legislation.

Trump reiterated his position Monday in a Truth Social post.

“A few Dumocrats are against FISA, with or without Bill Pulte going to DNI, as Acting. What kind of a deal is that. Besides, I’m against FISA if it doesn’t come with The Save America Act (Full version!) firmly attached to it. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” Trump wrote.

Asked whether he was concerned Trump could veto a stand-alone renewal, Thune said he hoped the president would ultimately support restoring the authority.

“I certainly would hope if we can get FISA off the floor, he would sign it,” Thune said.

Thune also suggested Democratic opposition to renewing Section 702 could ease after the Senate confirms Jay Clayton as director of national intelligence.

“That’s probably all contingent on Clayton getting confirmed and in position,” he said.

Democrats in both chambers blocked intelligence legislation last week following objections to Trump’s appointment of Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte as acting director of national intelligence.

Meanwhile, House Republicans continue to pursue the SAVE America Act. Speaker Mike Johnson, (R-LA) said Sunday that Republicans intend to advance the measure despite opposition from Democrats.

“So we’re gonna have to do it on our own. I’m gonna attach it to the reconciliation 3.0 and I’ve told the president, we’re gonna work really hard to make sure that gets to his desk,” Johnson said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 14:20

Hardline Israeli Politicians Livid Over Iran Deal, Want Netanyahu Out So They Can Do 'Real Regime Change'

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett didn’t mince words on Monday: the clock for regime change in Iran starts ticking the moment Israel gets a new government.

Chairman of the “Together” party and former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett speaks during a press conference at the Knesset in Jerusalem, May 20, 2026. (photo credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)

Speaking at the Knesset, Bennett unloaded on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, declaring that his term "began with a civil war, continued with the massacre of October 7, and ends with a historic failure against Iran." He tied any serious effort to topple the Iranian regime directly to political change in Jerusalem.

Bennett promised that under new leadership he would revive the "Octopus Doctrine" - hitting Iran with every tool available while blocking its nuclear path - and fix the IDF’s manpower crisis by ending haredi draft exemptions. “When there are no soldiers, you have to conquer the same point again and again, and that way you can’t win,” he said. “We can restore security to Israel.”

(Abir Sultan/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Hardliners and Hawks Slam the Deal

Bennett wasn’t alone. Several hardline and hawkish voices erupted in fury over the reported Trump-brokered US-Iran ceasefire agreement, blasting it as a lifeline to the Ayatollahs that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, ballistic missiles, and regional proxies largely intact, the jpost.com reports.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir was blistering on X:

"Trump’s agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation! We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security… We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah, we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure…" - Itamar Ben-Gvir on X, June 15, 2026

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was equally blunt:

"The agreement with Iran is bad for Israel and for the entire free world. Period… We will need to continue the campaign to topple the regime ourselves and in creative ways and ensure that Iran never has nuclear weapons." - Bezalel Smotrich on X, June 15, 2026

Yair Golan, leader of The Democrats, went further, calling the deal a strategic disaster engineered while Netanyahu stood “weak, sick, isolated, and lacking influence.” He accused Netanyahu of being “good for Hamas… good for Iran… good for Hezbollah” and declared:

"Replacing him is not just a political necessity - it is an existential security imperative."  - Yair Golan on X, June 15, 2026

Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot described an “abyss” between the government’s empty “total victory” promises and the reality of a failed leadership that had abandoned Israeli residents. Centrist Benny Gantz warned that any restrictions on Israel’s freedom of action in Lebanon or withdrawals that endanger the north were unacceptable.

The Core Demand: No More Half-Measures

Across these statements runs a clear through-line: the current government is too weak, too constrained by American pressure, and too compromised to deliver the decisive blow against Iran and Hezbollah. Bennett and Golan explicitly frame real regime-change pressure as something that can only happen after Netanyahu is gone. Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, still in the coalition, are already signaling they will not be bound by the deal and will push for maximalist goals anyway.

Defense Minister Israel Katz tried to draw a harder line by vowing the IDF would stay in security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza “indefinitely.” But the louder chorus from Bennett, the hard right, and parts of the opposition is that only new leadership - or at least a complete break from Netanyahu’s approach - can deliver the aggressive, multi-front campaign they believe is necessary.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 14:00

Stellar 20Y Auction Stops Through, With Highest Foreign Demand In 2 Years

In a quiet day for stocks, which are now trading near session lows, which in turn is prompting a bid for safety, the Treasury complex was already trading at the best levels of the day ahead of today's Treasury auction. Then just after 1pm, the stellar results from today's 20Y auction (technically a 19 Year 11-month reopening of cusip UV8), confirmed the solid demand for US paper. 

Today's sale of $13BN in 20Y paper was solid from top to bottom. The auction priced at a high yield of 4.927%, down from 5.122% last month; it also stopped through the 4.937% When Issued by 0.1bps. This means we have had 4 auctions without a tailing 20Y auction yet.

The bid to cover was likewise impressive, rising to 2.75 from 2.55, the highest since March and above the recent average of 2.648.

The internals were even better: indirects were awarded 71.6%, a big jump from 67.7% last month and the highest since July 2024. And with Directs awarded 19.9% (below the six-auction average of 24.3%), Dealers were left holding just 8.5%, one of the lowest on record.

Overall, this was a very strong auction, which was notable since there was virtually no concessions in today's strong secondary market. It also indicated that there are few jitters that Kevin Warsh may drop a hawkish surprise during tomorrow's FOMC meeting. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 13:47