Zero Hedge

Here's What Andy Burnham Means For Crypto In The UK

Here's What Andy Burnham Means For Crypto In The UK

Authored by Aaron Wood via CoinTelegraph.com,

Amid waning poll numbers and pressure from inside the Labour Party, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has stepped down. 

During Starmer’s tenure, the government introduced a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations to political campaigns, citing concerns that crypto could become a vector for foreign influence in UK elections. Beyond the ban, the UK has charted a cautious path on crypto regulation under the Labour government. 

Starmer’s departure from Number 10 has started discussions about his successor.

A frontrunner has emerged in Andy Burnham, a member of parliament for Makerfield and former Mayor of Greater Manchester. 

Burnham has expressed optimism about the blockchain industry’s ability to support economic development. But it remains to be seen whether that enthusiasm can translate into real policy moves.

Burnham wanted Manchester to be a “Web 3 powerhouse”

A graduate of Cambridge, Burnham served as a Cabinet minister under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, both as Health Secretary and Culture Secretary. From 2010 to 2015, he served as Shadow Education Secretary and Shadow Health Secretary under Ed Miliband before unsuccessfully contesting the Labor leadership bid in 2015.

From 2015-2016, he was Shadow Home Secretary under Jeremy Corbyn before leaving Westminster to become Mayor of Manchester in 2017. 

As mayor, Burnham has consistently framed digital technology as an economic development tool and a way of driving growth and jobs in the city. This framing was evident at a Stand With Crypto and Manchester Blockchain Alliance event, where he said, “I’m bought in.”

He further noted his commitment to “make [Manchester] the Web3 powerhouse that we want it to be.”

Whether this will translate into a coherent national policy is another matter. As mayor, Burnham championed a model dubbed “Manchesterism,” which prioritized devolution, regional economic control and public-private partnerships.

It’s a bottom-up approach that, some observers in the crypto industry say, needs to be amplified if it’s to bring national-level change to the industry.

Nick Jones, founder and CEO of UK digital assets services platform Zumo, told Cointelegraph, “Burnham’s rhetoric on crypto has to date been heavily influenced by his role as Mayor of Greater Manchester. For example, he has previously drawn parallels between digital innovation and historical developments, pointing out that Manchester was the home of the Industrial Revolution and has the potential to become the home of the Web3 revolution.”

“But such soundbites were to be expected in the context of his role. If he becomes Prime Minister, he will be well aware of the need to amplify that ambition and ensure the UK as a whole sits at the heart of the world’s future financial system,” he said.

Benoit Marzouk, the CEO of GBP stablecoin tGBP, told Cointelegraph that Burnham's Manchester experience “is not a handicap.” Rather, his experience outside Westminster, “could help implement and accelerate the right policies for the digital asset industry across the UK.”

Burnham has not yet published a detailed digital assets policy. His public comments about crypto reflect broader enthusiasm rather than specific regulatory commitments. He has not yet addressed the Financial Conduct Authority’s crypto framework, stablecoin law, or the crypto political donation ban on public record. 

The donation ban, politics, and what Burnham could actually do

In March, Stamer’s government banned crypto donations to political campaigns over concerns of foreign influence in British elections. 

The ban followed an independent review by Philip Rycroft, a former civil servant turned consultant, who found that the pseudonymous nature of crypto assets created unacceptable risks to political financing transparency.

Reversing a policy introduced on the recommendation of an independent review carries political risk. Labor's left could scrutinize any move that appears to open the party to crypto money, which Reform UK has used to fund its leading performance in recent local elections.

According to Reuters, crypto donations from billionaires based overseas put Reform well ahead of Labour in the fundraising race. Reform’s leader Nigel Farage is under investigation for an undisclosed 5 million pound ($6.6 million) gift from British Thai-based businessman Christopher Harborne. 

Despite obvious ethics concerns, Farage said he should be able to spend the gift however he wishes, be it for campaigning, or on Ferraris and betting on horses.

Amid political concerns over the temporary moratorium, a 180-degree ban reversal from Burnham seems unlikely. 

Marzouk expects Burnham to exhibit “pragmatism rather than political announcements.” For tGBP, success in the first year of a Burnham premiership would include a finalized stablecoin framework, pilot programs involving government and GBP stablecoins and continuing work on tokenization.

Tom Rhodes, chief legal officer for UK stablecoin issuer Agant, told Cointelegraph, “We don’t expect the next PM to interfere with any specific policies. The regulators remain independent and cryptoasset regulation is nearly settled.”

Jones said that Burnham is “on record strongly backing the underlying economic potential of our nascent sector.”

“If he does become the next Prime Minister, it’s unlikely his position will change. I believe he would continue to pursue the current growth-focused policy approach.”

The transition period could be bumpy, stalling momentum, according to Jones. “Any potential cabinet reshuffle could displace ministers who are familiar with the evolving regulatory regime at the critical inflection point when regulators and industry alike are preparing for authorization, and that would be a problem.”

Labour is yet to announce an official timetable for replacing Starmer, although the former PM has said that he’d like to see nominations open on July 9, after a NATO summit. According to Sky News, it could be a week later, on July 16, when parliament goes on summer recess. 

The winner must receive more than half the votes cast. If no one receives the necessary votes, then ballots are recast based on preference. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 05:00

Trump Insists Iran Caved On Nuclear Inspections, As Tehran Touts US To Unfreeze $12BN; Hormuz Tolls Still Disputed

Trump Insists Iran Caved On Nuclear Inspections, As Tehran Touts US To Unfreeze $12BN; Hormuz Tolls Still Disputed Summary
  • Conflicting Claims Remain: Washington and Tehran continue to dispute whether Iran agreed to extensive IAEA nuclear inspections and the terms of sanctions relief; also, Hormuz tolls remains an issue of contention.
  • $12 Billion Asset Release: Iran says $12 billion in frozen assets will be released initially, with total relief potentially reaching $50 billion if a final deal is reached.
  • Battle Over Fund Control: The US says released funds would be restricted to humanitarian purchases, while Iran insists it will decide how to use its own money.
  • Oil Relief and Hormuz: Temporary sanctions relief for Iranian oil exports has begun, and both sides say the Strait of Hormuz remains open to shipping.
  • Fragile Progress & a Russian Role? Iran is considering sending enriched uranium to Russia, but regional tensions and unresolved issues still threaten the talks.

*  *  *

Fees for Transiting Hormuz? Another Switzerland Unresolved Issue

Despite Washington pressure and warnings, it appears Oman is still on board with cooperating with Iran to extract Hormuz Strait transit fees, or tolls, over and against repeat objections from the White House.

Alongside nuclear inspectors, this remains a top disputed issue, despite the MoD framework having been signed. But the two sides are likely to leave the details to be hashed out during the 60-day 'technical negotiations'.

Trump Insists Iran Agreed to 'Highest Level' of Nuclear Inspections

With a number of issues still up in the air, amid claims and counter-claims coming after Switzerland - from nuclear inspectors accessing Iran to how Tehran is able to use its soon to be unfrozen funds - President Trump heightens the drama by issuing a Tuesday morning Truth Social message regarding the negotiations

Trump insists that Iran has agreed to the "highest level" of nuclear inspections, calling it a guarantee of "Nuclear Honesty" and stressing that there would have been "no further negotiations" without such a commitment. He also says the US will allow the Strait of Hormuz to remain "OPEN" and is not pursuing a naval blockade, though military assets remain in place if conditions change.

According to Trump, any sanctions relief or released Iranian funds will be held in US-controlled escrow and can only be used to purchase food and medical supplies from the United States, including "Corn, Wheat, and Soybeans from our great American Farmers."

Trump now characterizes the situation in Iran as a "humanitarian crisis" and concluded that "Talks are going well!!".

Iran Touts $12BN in Frozen Assets to Be Released, Will Use How it Pleases

Among the biggest latest developments in the immediate wake of the Switzerland meeting is that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf has announced an agreement has been reached for the United States to release $12 billion in frozen Iranian assets.

It also comes after the US Treasury Department announced temporary sanctions relief, namely freeing up Iranian oil and petrochemical sales until August 1st. Concerning the frozen asset partial release, Tehran is now emphasizing that it alone will decide how the funds will be used.

But this may be another area where the headlines and declarations are too far out front, given Washington has sought to impose some caveats which likely remain unacceptable to the Iranians side. For example Vice President JD Vance made clear his stance Monday that Iranian assets had not yet been unfrozen as part of the deal, describing that if there were, they must be limited in use and implementation - to purchase US agricultural goods. He has emphasized - perhaps wishing to address American domestic criticisms - that the funds would not be used to support terrorism.

Ali Bahreini, the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations, has already firmly rejected the soybean plan, saying at a UN press briefing, "Iran is the only country who will decide what to do with its assets, which are going to be defrozen."

In total a whopping $50 billion could eventually be released under the MoU framework - something which will drive Republican hawsk mad. Al Jazeera reports Tuesday, citing the Iranian side: 

A spokesperson said the agreement would allow Iran access to previously frozen assets, although the US says restrictions would remain in place under the arrangement.

According to sources familiar with the negotiations, two separate tranches of $6bn were originally agreed in Doha, with the final signing ceremony intended to take place in Switzerland. The Iranian spokesperson now says that process has been completed.

Under the reported framework, an initial $12bn in Iranian funds would be released. During the 60-day negotiation period, a further $12bn could be unlocked. If the parties ultimately reach a final agreement, the value of sanctions relief and released funds could reportedly rise to as much as $50bn.

Official Contradiction: Vance Had Hailed Iran Will Allow IAEA Access to Nuclear Sites

Another point of disagreement remains the entry of IAEA nuclear inspectors into the Islamic Republic. Vance had hailed Tehran already agreed to this, while Iran's leaders are in effect saying not so fast. It's but one of several major contradictions in public rhetoric coming from either side in the wake of the top-level round one meeting in Switzerland.

Something interesting - which Washington may or may not be on board with - is that Tehran is now signaling openness to Russia hosting its enriched nuclear material.

Russia to Host Enriched Uranium? 

Al Arabiya reports that Iran's aforementioned UN ambassador says "transferring enriched uranium to Russia is under consideration." This could indeed be enough to satisfy President Trump, considering it would be a 'lesser evil' option if indeed the Iranians are actually ready for such a plan (which Moscow has offered several times to facilitate over the past year).

Lebanon is another issue which could threaten to unravel all the progress made thus far, but reports cite a 'cautious calm' across the south, but with some limited, sporadic exchanges of fire.

One correspondent on the ground reports, "Here in Tyre, people driving across the city this morning are picking up bits of rubble, starting to clear things out and searching for what they can salvage among their destroyed homes and businesses. That is what people are using this moment of calm for."

However, there's been reports of at least two new Lebanese deaths. In one instance Lebanese national media indicated "A young man was killed and two others were injured” when Israeli soldiers "opened machine gun fire in their direction while they were standing near an excavator which was clearing a road" in a locality near the town of Nabatieh - per the National News Agency. Hezbollah is saying Tuesday that this violates the ceasefire agreement.

The situation on Monday was such that the Iranian delegation almost quit the Sunday-Monday talks completely, Iran's top negotiator has explained:

More Latest Developments

Below are some latest developments on the US-Iran peace front via Middle East Eye:

  • Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said an agreement had been reached to release $12bn in frozen Iranian assets.
  • The US Treasury Department announced temporary sanctions relief allowing Iranian oil and petrochemical sales until 1 August.
  • Washington said the measures follow Iran’s commitment to permit international nuclear inspections after intensive talks in Switzerland.
  • President Donald Trump said released Iranian funds would be used to purchase food and agricultural products from US farmers.
  • Iran’s Central Bank rejected Trump’s comments, saying Tehran is under no obligation to spend released funds on American goods.
  • Iranian officials said technical negotiations with the United States have concluded and the process is entering a new phase.
  • President Masoud Pezeshkian said the effectiveness of future talks depends on all sides fully implementing their commitments.
  • A US official said Centcom has launched a monitoring mechanism in Lebanon to provide American officials with assessments of fighting on the ground.
  • Israeli officials reiterated that military operations in Lebanon would continue despite ongoing diplomatic progress between Washington and Tehran.
  • Markets and regional observers continued to focus on sanctions implementation, Hormuz shipping activity and the durability of the broader agreement.

And via Newsquawk summary:

  • Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Baghaei said "if the other party does not fulfill its obligations, we should not be expected to unilaterally fulfill our obligations", Iran International reported.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said defensive capabilities and missiles will never be a topic of discussion. US commitment regarding Lebanon is completely clear.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said quadrilateral talks were stopped early in Switzerland due to the witnessing of US threats. Thereafter, exchanges were via a mediator, Mehr reported.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesperson said Iran has no plans to let IAEA inspectors visit nuclear sites targeted in the conflict.
  • Iranian President, ahead of trip to Pakistan, said Iran is seeking the full implementation of the clauses that have been signed within the framework of international law, Nour News reported.
  • Iranian Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf said the Strait of Hormuz will be administered by Iran according to international law.
  • Iranian President Pezeshkian said in phone call to Turkish President Erdogan on Monday that Iran is ready to pursue diplomacy as per international law.
  • Iran Central Bank Governor said Tehran is not obliged to purchase US agricultural goods under current agreements, and states that remaining frozen assets can be used to buy non-sanctioned goods beyond essential items, according to Tasnim.
  • "Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi will visit Baghdad next Sunday", Al Mayadeen reported citing sources; The meeting will include a briefing on the progress of the talks in Switzerland and the preparations.
  • Iranian Foreign Ministry said "America has issued the necessary license for the sale of Iranian oil and petrochemical products", Al Jazeera reported.
  • Iranian Ambassador to the UN said any further attacks on Lebanon would be a red line.
  • Iranian Ambassador to the UN said Hormuz talks will be held with Oman.
  • Iranian Ambassador to the UN said there has been good progress in negotiations with the US.
  • "Sources indicate that the Iranian Foreign Minister [Araghchi] will hold separate talks with Pakistani officials", Al Hadath reported.
  • Oman's Foreign Minister said Iranian negotiators reaffirmed their commitment to international law and to ensuring safe, toll-free passage through the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Oman's Foreign Minister meets with Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ghalibaf, with the officials discussing regional stability and Strait of Hormuz.
  • Shipping data cited by Al-Arabia showed at least 20 ships have crossed the Strait of Hormuz in the past 24 hours.
  • One person reportedly killed by Israeli gunfire in a southern Lebanese town, according to Lebanese Civil Defense and a security source - timing unclear.
  • Senior US official tells Al Jazeera that talks between Lebanon and Israel will continue to advance comprehensive peace and a security agreement between the two countries.
  • Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said Israel must act alone against Iran's nuclear program and must maintain military freedom in Lebanon, hopes withdrawal from southern Lebanon will not happen and will do everything to convince PM Netanyahu.
  • Israel military shells and fires at Khan Yunis in Gaza, according to Fars News Agency.
  • Israel's PM, Defence Minister and Military Chief said Israeli military will continue to act to neutralise threats to soldiers and citizens, demolish terrorist infrastructure, and maintain security zone in southern Lebanon, according to a joint statement. Israel's leadership reaffirms that the security of Israeli citizens and IDF troops will remain its overriding priority, with no room for compromise.
  • Israeli forces reportedly violate Syrian territory, conducting house searches in southern outskirts of Quneitra governorate.
  • US-Iran technical talks in Burgenstock had a "breakthrough", talks proceed seemingly in a positive direction, Journalist Mallick reported.
  • US President Trump, on Israel and Lebanon, said "we'll take a look at it"; said he gets problems solved fast, including with Israeli PM Netanyahu.
  • US President Trump said if Iran doesn't stick to agreement, he will do what he has to do. As long as Iran respects us, we are not going to have any trouble. Could restart the blockade quickly if needed.
Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 04:25

German Swimming Pool Bans Visitors Who Can't Speak German, Citing Safety Concerns

German Swimming Pool Bans Visitors Who Can't Speak German, Citing Safety Concerns

Via Remix News,

A public swimming pool in Germany has introduced strict new admission rules barring entry to anyone who cannot speak German, with management insisting the policy is essential to guarantee the safety of guests.

The Heidebad natural swimming pool in Halle, Saxony-Anhalt, now requires visitors to demonstrate German language skills before being allowed in. Managing Director Mathias Nobel defended the rule publicly, explaining that he is responsible for the safety of thousands of swimmers and will not compromise when it comes to protecting children and families.

The facility says that emergency alerts, water-depth warnings, and direct verbal instructions from lifeguards have repeatedly been ignored or misunderstood because of language barriers.

In one recent emergency, Nobel, while acting as a lifeguard, had to pull a young child out of deep water due to a language barrier. To reduce these risks, staff will now deny entry to any guest if they determine that essential safety communication cannot be reliably established, according to German media outlet MDR.

Pool management acknowledges that the rule has triggered considerable backlash, but says the public dissatisfaction is being “deliberately accepted in the interest of general safety.”

From the operators’ perspective, dealing with angry patrons is preferable “than an avoidable swimming accident.” The policy is already being actively enforced, and several would-be guests have been turned away at the gate.

The Heidebad is part of a wider trend of European public pools tightening entry requirements in response to regional migration shifts. Last year, an outdoor pool in Porrentruy, located in the Swiss municipality of Pruntrut, initially banned foreigners entirely due to violence, sexual harassment and constant disturbances. Swiss visitors to the pool and employees were generally happy about the move.

The ban came about after ‘French youths with a migration background’ continuously caused problems at the pool and in pool bathrooms, including the sexual harassment of young girls. The situation even sparked international headlines.

However, the Swiss paper 20 Minuten reported a surge in season ticket sales after the ban was put in place.

“It went very well. Citizens have rediscovered the bathing establishment with the peace and quiet that comes with it,” said Lionel Maître, the municipal councilor for tourism and leisure in Porrentruy.

“We have seen an increase in season ticket sales as citizens have finally regained the long-awaited sense of security. There have been no problems and no new bathing bans since then.”

The swimming pool has since changed its policy and now charges non-locals double ticket prices. The municipality has also added extra administrative steps for certain visitors. Anyone who is not a local resident and lacks a valid Swiss residence, work, or settlement permit must buy admission online in advance. Visitors without a recognized regional tourist card must also present valid identification at the entrance, and those who fail to do so are refused entry.

Mayor Philippe Eggertswyler publicly backed the new pricing and entry framework, stating that “It’s not about pitting Swiss and foreigners against each other, but about guaranteeing calm.”

The swimming pool may have backed down from its total ban on foreigners due to pressure from the federal government. The Federal Commission against Racism called the blanket exclusion “problematic and irritating.”

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 03:30

Ursula von der Leyen To Visit Armenia Next Week As Pro-EU Aspirations Ramp Up

Ursula von der Leyen To Visit Armenia Next Week As Pro-EU Aspirations Ramp Up

Brussels is eyeing Armenia as the small Caucasus nation has lately made it's pro-EU aspirations known, given just earlier this month Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan's party won parliamentary elections, in a vote widely seen as signififying its major pro-Western shift.

Pashinyan had claimed a "historic victory that will ensure Armenia’s eternity and development" while also vowing to "continue the course of rapprochement with the West" - but while balancing the pursuit of positive relations with Russia.

And now, just days after the result was confirmed, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is preparing to travel to Armenia next week, Politico reports.

Image: Prime Minister of Armenia's Press Service

The EU delegation is expected to be high-level, given it will include Enlargement Commissioner Marta Kos in a high-profile show of support fo Pashinyan after his pro-European party secured the decisive victory.

"We have seen the country under intense and consistent pressure from Russia; a visit would send a strong signal of support, following on from the concrete support already delivered," said one EU official working on the prospective trip, as quoted in Politico and Armenian media.

Anonymous EU officials indicated to Politico that the visit would send the message that "Europe is here for you."

Notably this will be von der Leyen's second to Armenia in less than two months. The Commission president was in Yerevan just in May for the European Political Community summit, which took place in Yerevan, before participating in the inaugural EU-Armenia summit.

The Kremlin itself has also pounced on this theme of Armenia as the next potential ground zero for a tug of war with EU/NATO interests - a familiar theme which has also been on display in places from Georgia to Ukraine to Moldova.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova went so far as to officially allege unfair and illegal tactics unleashed by local authorities on Russia-friendly interests inside Armenia.

"On June 7, parliamentary elections were held in Armenia in an atmosphere of unprecedented pressure on the opposition and interference from the West, primarily the EU," Zakharova commented earlier this month.

Russia has been widely seen as 'disappointing' the Armenian population in the context of the Azerbaijan crisis.

Region of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Former members of the CSTO military alliance were Azerbaijan, Georgia and Uzbekistan.

Recent years of war between Christian Armenia and its better-armed Muslim neighbor Azerbaijan (which is a secular Republic) has seen tensions ratchet between one-time close allies Armenia and Russia. 

Armenia has long been a key member of the regional Russian-led bloc, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). However, Armenia froze its participation since 2024, outraged over Russia's failure to protect ethnic Armenians during Azerbaijan’s 2023 takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 02:45

Can Anyone Govern Britain... Or America?

Can Anyone Govern Britain... Or America?

Authored by Daniel McCarthy via PJMedia.com,

As Britain gets ready for its seventh prime minister in just 10 years, it's time to ask whether the parliamentary system itself is broken.

That might explain not only why landslide election victories don't translate into stable leadership in Britain but also why America's Congress is so feckless. 

Is representative government an idea whose time has passed?

In Europe as well as America, leftists prefer that judges and bureaucrats wield permanent power, as supposedly impartial experts who know best how to stop the weather from changing and how many genders there are. 

Britain's Labour party started out as a vehicle for the working class, in theory.

It was closely connected to the country's major industrial unions — but Britain in the 21st century has lost most of its hard industry, and Labour is now led by the same kind of socially left-wing, technocratic wonks that make up the "inner party" of the Democrats in this country. 

Brexit, passed by the British people in a referendum 10 years ago this week, proved Labour had lost the working class -- the party elite favored remaining in the European Union, but working-class voters themselves cast their ballots for "leave."

Unfortunately, the Conservative party's elite also favored "remain" — Prime Minister David Cameron himself did, and losing the Brexit referendum compelled him to resign. 

Yet Cameron was followed by another Conservative PM, Theresa May, who had also been a remainer. 

It took a third Tory PM, Boris Johnson, to follow through on the voters' mandate, but Johnson proved to be Britain's Joe Biden where immigration was concerned, unleashing the "Boriswave" of mass migration, which flooded Britain with some 4 million newcomers from places like India, China, Pakistan and Nigeria. 

Personal scandals forced Johnson from office before the scale of the damage his policies did came to light — but bond markets didn't tolerate Johnson's successor, Liz Truss, for long. 

That left Rishi Sunak to lead the Conservatives in 2024 to their first general election defeat in 14 years. In that time, Conservatives had given Britain same-sex marriage, bigger government, deeper debt, more green-energy regulation and record-high immigration.

Labour more than doubled its number of seats in Parliament with Keir Starmer leading the party into the election, yet the landslide didn't translate into any mandate for him. 

His popularity soon slid and polls indicated the Reform party would win the next election, making Nigel Farage prime minister. 

Labour is now gambling its problems are personal, not political, and once Starmer has made way for a new PM — virtually certain to be Andy Burnham — its majority will be salvageable. 

Burnham is even more left-wing than Starmer: at least as far left on social issues and even more enthusiastic about nationalizing industry. 

Farage is wagering Starmer wasn't the millstone around Labour's neck — the party's politics are. 

But even as traditional parties of the left and right elsewhere in Europe have decayed in ways much like those of Britain's Tories and Labour, new populist parties have struggled to win and maintain power. 

Farage has to contend not only with Labour and what's left of the Conservatives, but also with a small but vociferous insurgency to his right, the Restore party. 

All this suggests Burnham or Farage can't count on enjoying a tenure longer than Starmer's or Sunak's. 

Parliamentary elections haven't produced a stable British government by anyone in the last 16 years. 

What are the odds the next election, which has to be held by August 2029, will do so?

Congressional elections here also keep producing majorities that can't govern, either because control of House and Senate is divided or the majority party in one or both chambers is itself divided and unable to legislate. 

The two parties have been rapidly alternating control as well. It's been nearly 20 years since either was able to hold onto the House or Senate for more than a decade. 

Democrats have the upper hand when Congress is weak because federal bureaucrats, and judges capable of issuing nationwide injunctions, continue advancing Democratic designs on their own. 

Fed up with this, many conservatives have come around to the idea only a brash and strong president, like Trump, wielding unitary executive power, can rein in the administrative state and activist judges — Congress can't.

Two-hundred and fifty years ago, Americans rejected the legitimacy of a British parliament that taxed us without giving us an effective say in government. 

It's another revolutionary situation if voters in Britain or America today feel unrepresented — or misrepresented — by the legislators they put in office. 

On both sides of the Atlantic, members of parliament and of Congress are going to have to work harder and listen a lot more attentively to what voters are demanding if representative government is going to survive much longer: What we're seeing now is how parliaments die.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Wed, 06/24/2026 - 02:00

She Took Two Key Items: New Details Raise Doubts Over Los Alamos Lab Assistant's Death

She Took Two Key Items: New Details Raise Doubts Over Los Alamos Lab Assistant's Death

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Fresh reporting reveals that Melissa Casias, administrative assistant at the Los Alamos nuclear lab, left home with everyday possessions that suggest she intended to survive - not end her life - raising new questions in the widening pattern of mysterious deaths among nuclear and UFO-linked personnel.

Some have suggested that Casias committed suicide, yet new details about her final moments show that before walking out the door of her Ranchos de Taos home on June 26, 2025, Casias took her toothbrush and thyroid medication with her.

Los Angeles Magazine contributor Lauren Conlin, who has followed the case closely, told NewsNation that these are "things that might indicate you're planning to stay alive."

She also returned home to drop off both her work and personal phones - which were later found wiped clean of all data. Her skeletal remains were discovered nearly a year later next to a handgun her family has stated did not belong to her. No bullet was recovered despite reports of a gunshot wound to the head.

Investigator Morgan Wright put it plainly: "You don't get slumped up on a tree... Most of the time, in every crime scene I've worked on, there are skeletonized remains, and there's no connective tissue left. Everything's on the ground in pieces."

These elements - the survival items, the wiped phones, the unfamiliar weapon, and the scene inconsistencies - are now the focus of renewed scrutiny.

This latest angle on the Casias case arrives against the backdrop of a documented cluster of similar incidents involving scientists and support staff tied to sensitive programs.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland, long described as a UFO "gatekeeper," vanished just days after President Trump's full disclosure order on UAP files.

A NASA nuclear propulsion expert was found charred inside a crashed Tesla.

A NASA-linked aerospace engineer and family members died in a plane crash.

Additional cases brought the total to around 11 by mid-April 2026, many sharing traits like wiped devices and abrupt departures from normal routines.

President Trump has addressed the wider string of cases directly, telling reporters it is "pretty serious stuff" and that the administration is reviewing them. He stated that while some of the individuals were "very important people," "so far we're finding that there's not much of a connection," describing many as individual matters. He pledged a full report.

Three sets of declassified UFO/UAP files have since been released under the administration's transparency directives, with more batches expected.

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker has highlighted the risks in classified environments, noting that administrative staff in high-clearance labs "would basically be in the know on what's going on" and that it "wouldn't be the first time their administrative assistant has been targeted."

More recently, former FBI agent Ben Hansen assessed the Casias case as roughly "80 percent foul play" and raised the possibility of advanced tactics, including direct energy weapons or voice-to-skull technology, that could influence behavior without leaving conventional traces.

In an environment where America is finally forcing long-buried advanced technology files into the open, the repeated loss of personnel with access to those very secrets carries national security weight. Whether foreign actors, internal resistance to transparency, or other forces are involved, the pattern deserves unflinching examination.

The Trump administration's willingness to release the files and review these cases represents a break from past secrecy.

The public now has every right to demand the same level of transparency when it comes to why these specific individuals - and the small but telling choices they made in their final hours - keep disappearing from the picture.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 22:35

"We Must Act": TotalEnergies CEO Joins Calls To Rewire Gulf Energy Flows Around Hormuz

"We Must Act": TotalEnergies CEO Joins Calls To Rewire Gulf Energy Flows Around Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz was disrupted or nearly closed for roughly three and a half to four months, offering Gulf states aligned with the U.S. one clear message: energy flows - or tanker transits - must be rewired through pipeline networks that bypass the maritime chokepoint.

By creating alternative pipeline export routes through the UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Oman, or Turkey, regional producers can reduce the risk that Tehran can once again use Hormuz as a leverage tool to disrupt tanker traffic through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. 

TotalEnergies SE CEO Patrick Pouyanne is the latest to signal the urgent need for Gulf producers to prioritize building pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, according to Reuters.

Speaking at an energy conference in Paris on Tuesday, Pouyanne said, "The reality is that the Strait of Hormuz represents a genuine threat, so we must act. To ensure it doesn't remain a threat, there is only one solution: we must invest in pipelines to bypass the strait, which is an absolute priority."

Pouyanne identified alternative export routes in the UAE and Iraq, as well as through Syria. He continued, "When you are in Iraq and need to reach the sea, you can go down through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or head towards Syria or Turkey." 

He referenced TotalEnergies' discovery of oil in Iraq in 1928, which led to an Iraq-Syria pipeline that took six years to build and allowed the French energy giant to load crude in the Mediterranean and feed refineries in southern France.

"If our predecessors did it 100 years ago, I believe we should be capable of doing it again today," he added.

Pouyanne's comments to bypass Hormuz come days after the UAE's Minister of Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi told Bloomberg in an interview that "zero Hormuz dependency" is essential for survival, adding, "It's going to open and we hope that will happen quickly, but we will not stop the new plan."

The plan includes major investments in pipelines, rail, and road links from UAE ports in the Persian Gulf to Dibba, Fujairah, Khor Fakkan and at least one new harbor on the Gulf of Oman coast.

Earlier this month, Sheikh Khaled Ahmad Al-Sabah, managing director of international marketing at Kuwait Petroleum, said Kuwait is among the countries that have reportedly held talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE about potential cross-border pipelines that could connect Gulf oil production to buyers without relying on tanker transits through Hormuz.

In the first month of the conflict, Saudi Arabia's Hormuz-bypassing East-West pipeline ramped up to its full capacity of 7 million barrels a day, allowing the Kingdom to divert flows from Persian Gulf loading terminals to those at Yanbu on the Red Sea.

There is a growing consensus among Gulf producers and global energy giants that a pipeline network must be expanded at lightning speed to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. That logic is simply because it would drastically reduce the region’s dependence on the chokepoint and simultaneously shatter Tehran’s ability to use tanker flows as a leverage tool in any future spat with Washington.

Related:

Earlier today, Eurasia Group senior analyst Gregory Brew wrote on X that Iran's regional leverage is eroding: "This may be Iran's first misstep—and proof that its leverage isn't total. Iran announced the strait was closed, but it didn't *close* the strait. Without the credible threat of force, Iran's sway over the waterway has limits."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 22:10

DHS Proposes To Increase Citizenship Application Fees By 80%

DHS Proposes To Increase Citizenship Application Fees By 80%

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration on June 23 proposed increasing the cost of becoming an American citizen in a move that would nearly double the price of naturalization.

The proposal would raise the government’s fee for filing an online naturalization application form, the N-400, from $710 to $1,280, an 80-percent increase, according to the proposal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published in the Federal Register on Tuesday.

For paper filings of the N-400, DHS said that it wants to raise the fee from $760 to $1,330, an increase of 75 percent.

For online filings of the N-336, a form requesting a hearing on naturalization proceedings, the fee would increase from $780 to $1,425, an 83 percent increase.

The paper filing fee for Form N-336 would rise from $830 to $1,475, a 77.7-percent increase.

“Although DHS has historically limited the fees for (citizenship-related applications) to fulfill previous administrations’ priorities of encouraging naturalization, DHS no longer believes naturalization benefit requests should get lower fees at the potential expense of other immigration benefits,” DHS said in its proposed regulation.

DHS officials also said they were moving to remove some fee waivers for poorer applicants. Those waivers would be given only to people who are trying to become citizens by joining the U.S. military, it said.

Should the proposal be accepted, according to the agency, the increases in fees would bring in more than $430 million each year from prospective citizens. It added that around 1 million people seek to become naturalized citizens each year.

The decision drew some pushback from the American Immigration Council. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow with the group, said in a post on X that he believes the DHS proposal is targeting people who have green cards, or permanent residency status, from becoming American citizens.

“The U.S. government for years tried to keep the costs artificially low to encourage more people with green cards to apply for citizenship,” he wrote. “No more, it seems!”

DHS will be accepting public comments until Aug. 24, 2026.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump’s administration has tightened rules around legal immigration and naturalization. In May, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said it would require immigrants seeking green cards to apply from their home country.

“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly,” USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said in a statement last month.

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency.”

Weeks before that, DHS said that immigrants who have made statements that it deems extremist would face closer scrutiny from immigration officials, with a spokesperson saying that such comments “may raise serious concerns for USCIS personnel reviewing an applicant’s file, ​including espousing terrorist ideologies, expressing hatred for American values, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States ​government, or providing material support to terrorist organizations.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 21:45

From Bartenders To Builders: Data Centers Drive America's Blue-Collar Comeback

From Bartenders To Builders: Data Centers Drive America's Blue-Collar Comeback

A seismic shift is underway in the U.S. labor market after a quarter-century of America's industrial base being hollowed out following China's entry into the WTO, a period marked by the decline of goods-producing jobs while leisure and hospitality employment surged.

The driver of the current job shift is the data center buildout phase, which is expected to require millions of new jobs across construction, manufacturing, electrical trades, power infrastructure, and the broader industrial supply chain. Additionally, reshoring critical supply chains will require even more goods-producing jobs, which are high-paying and pay far more than low-wage jobs such as bartending and waiting.

Nancy Lazar, Piper Sandler's chief global economist and head of the firm's economics research team, published a note on Sunday showing what happened to the U.S. labor market after China joined the WTO in 2001.

The result was a long-term hollowing out of America's industrial base, marked by a sharp decline in higher-paying goods-producing jobs while lower-quality leisure and hospitality jobs surged. Education and health services jobs also continued to move up and to the right.

But there was good news around 2010, when goods-producing jobs began to reverse. Lazar's note suggests that the trend is now set to accelerate as the data center, power grid, and AI infrastructure buildout drives a new wave of demand for industrial labor.

Lazar continued:

Bullish On Goods Producing Jobs vs. Hotel & Restaurant Jobs.

When China joined the WTO in 2001, U.S. goods producing jobs began a decade of decline, while leisure & hospitality, and education & health jobs continued to rise …

… so today, goods producing jobs are less than half those of low-paying service jobs – their share was over 50% in the mid-1980s.

That employment mix shift gave us the bifurcated consumer, as lower paying jobs gained share. Goods producing jobs pay more than overall service producing jobs – and lots more than leisure & hospitality, or education & health care jobs.

Good news: That mix is now shifting the other way, as the long-running (not just tech) capex cycle raises productivity and margins, encouraging adding headcount.

Look at relative earnings growth, by sector, below.

Combine that with falling energy prices and (we believe) slowing core inflation, and we're on the lookout for narrowing bifurcation among consumers. That would indeed be good news. We're watching our Daily consumer confidence survey, non-investor component, closely.

Industrial labor demand is likely to remain a strong trend for several years, with $800 billion in hyperscaler capex being deployed for data center buildouts just this year alone - and don't worry about humanoid robots entering construction sites until the next decade.

However, college graduates, mostly burdened by insurmountable student debt, are watching in disbelief as corporate America rapidly automates white-collar jobs out of existence.

Last week, Goldman analysts led by Pierfrancesco Mei identified the 20 college majors most exposed to AI job disruption.

Most and Least AI-Exposed Jobs  

It's a boon for Main Street and blue-collar workers, rather than college-educated elites. Liberals are furious that SpaceX welders with no college degrees have been minted into instant millionaires after the latest IPO.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 21:20

How Can We Restore Trusted Elections?

How Can We Restore Trusted Elections?

Authored by Christian Milord via The Epoch Times,

It's mind-boggling that elections and election results take so long to complete, especially in a developed nation such as the United States.

A person votes in the Virginia redistricting referendum at Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy, Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in Alexandria, Va. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

It's inexcusable that our modern society can't establish firm timelines and expedite tabulation when many nations, both developed and developing, announce results on the same day as the election or within a day or two. Many of those countries lack the election technologies that the United States takes for granted.

In the case of very close elections similar to the George W. Bush vs. Al Gore in 2000, there was a need to proceed slowly as the razor thin election boiled down to the state of Florida. There was a recount wherein punch-card ballots were checked for chads and hanging chads to ensure the count was accurate. After five weeks, the election was finally certified by a few hundred votes in favor of Bush by Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court.

A number of reforms could be rolled out in order to speed up our election system so that results are accurate, timely, and can be trusted by the electorate. Voting is an important earned right that can't be handed out to non-citizens or be taken lightly.

First, voters should have a valid ID to vote, and a valid signature must be written, whether voting is by mail or at a polling location. More than 80 percent of voters favor a valid ID for citizens to vote, since an ID is required for many minor activities that don't rise to the level of importance as a citizen's right to vote. That is why the SAVE Act is so critical at this time as the midterms approach in November. Valid addresses, IDs, and signatures can reduce potential abuse and doubts regarding election integrity.

Second, eliminate the primary system in which a number of candidates vie for elected positions at the local, state, and national levels. It costs untold millions to campaign, mail out ballots, run polling stations, and tabulate votes. Why not have candidates compete for positions every two, four, or six years and hold the elections at specified times in the fall without the need for primaries?

Third, only mail out ballots to voters who request them. Millions of dollars are spent mailing ballots to every registered voter, even though many voters prefer to vote in person at polling locations. One can understand mailing out ballots to American voters who are working overseas. It makes sense to send it to these voters early to allow time for them to complete their ballots and return them to the United States. Unlimited mailing can result in unused ballots and could lead to some ballot harvesting.

Moreover, ballots shouldn't be mailed out so early in the election "season." Those who request ballots should receive them only a few days before an election, not weeks beforehand. Early mail-outs can lead to lost ballots, tossed ballots for those who vote at the polls, and possible ballot harvesting. Likewise, completed ballots postmarked on election day should not be accepted many days after election day. It can generate uncertainty for candidates and voters.

Fourth, make it unlawful for signature collectors or anyone else to pay folks to register to vote or sign on to potential legislation. According to The Epoch Times, this activity has occurred several times in California and elsewhere. Anyone who is concerned with the workings of government shouldn't receive compensation to vote for candidates and issues. No one, regardless of political party, should coerce or entice someone to vote in a partisan direction either. It taints fair and free elections.

Fifth, voter rolls ought to be purged regularly because people pass away, move out of the county, or move into the county as residents and register to vote. Mailing ballots to everyone can be a waste if rolls aren't kept up to date to reflect the current registered voters who still reside in a particular county. If the rolls aren't updated regularly, it can also lead to ballots being stolen or open the floodgates for people to vote twice or for someone else.

Sixth, although mandates wouldn't be effective at shortening the campaign season, they might help to make the campaign trail less drawn out. In most nations, campaign season runs for a few weeks or a month or two. In America, campaigning seems to roll on forever, and elections can feel anticlimactic. By the time one election is concluded, the next election arrives quickly on the horizon. Candidates even campaign while they are in office and constantly keep an eye out for the next election.

Prolonged political campaigning can be a distraction from carrying out the duties of representing the people and solving pressing problems that affect their lives. Media outlets can play a role in discussing critical issues more objectively instead of sensationalizing every minor action by political opponents or supporters.

Constant campaign mode can devolve into self-interest rather than the more important national interest. Americans need fewer promises from politicians and more delivery in the spheres of free markets, the protection of liberty, just laws, and national security.

Common sense informs us that in tight elections, tabulating must be checked carefully at a slower pace than when a candidate or initiative/referendum wins by a larger margin. For the most part, elections can be trusted if they are properly managed and results are released in a timely manner. If the process is lengthy, it can breed cynicism, and many voters might not bother to vote.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:55

Movie "Citizen Vigilante" Exposes Migrant Crime Issue And Triggers Outrage

Movie "Citizen Vigilante" Exposes Migrant Crime Issue And Triggers Outrage

The current political climate across the west is tumultuous and chaotic, largely due to one volatile issue causing deep divisions:  Mass immigration.  Not just mass immigration, but mass invasion from third-world countries and facilitated by liberal governments. 

Leftists, driven by an obsession with multiculturalism and Marxism, desperately want mass immigration to continue unabated.  Conservatives and centrists want immigration stopped and, ideally, reversed.  Both sides refuse to budge which has created an explosive impasse.  The debate is on the verge of becoming a civil war. 

  

In this debate, only one side is correct.  It is clear to the majority of western citizens that after a decade of migrant programs, there simply is no compatibility between European/American culture and third world cultures.  These cultures reside in regions of the world where authoritarianism and barbarism are ingrained in the public psyche; they have no conception of western ideals of individual freedom, meritocracy, high trust or "tolerance." 

They only view western empathy as a weakness that should be exploited.  Meaning, westerners and third worlders will never be able to coexist.  It's simply not possible without one side dominating the other.

In the midst of this debate the political left has had the most control over popular media and which message gets the most exposure.  Pro-immigration and multicultural movies, TV shows and commercials saturate the market.  If any project criticizing immigration makes it to the light of day, it's kind of a miracle.  Enter the independent film "Citizen Vigilante".

Produced and directed by Uwe Boll, Citizen Vigilante stars Armie Hammer as Sanders, an American businessman and former US Army officer living in Europe.  He becomes incensed by vicious migrant crimes and the corrupt two-tier  legal system that consistently helps migrants escape punishment.  He sets out on a mission to target criminals who avoid justice, along with the political officials who enable the crime. 

The film is reminiscent of a modern-day Death Wish, a movie which was inspired by the extreme firearms restrictions in New York City in 1974.  Restrictions that allowed violent criminals and gangs to run rampant without fear of citizen reprisal.  To this day, NYC remains a safe haven for repeat offenders and lunatics and any private citizen who steps up to prevent a crime is prosecuted.  

Needless to say, the Citizen Vigilante release has caused a stir.  Progressives and Muslim advocates are outraged by the film's brutal violence against migrant characters.  The German government has essentially banned the film from release, refusing to give it a rating or age classification which is needed for theaters to carry the movie.  All the right people seem to be angry.

Leftists have attempted to run interference as the movie rises in popularity, with some claiming that Uwe Boll made the flick as a parody to mock "right wing xenophobia".  This narrative has been dismissed by Uwe Boll himself, and he states that he is quite serious about the film's message.  In response, the media has attacked Boll as a "Nazi".   

The film is inspired by real world events, such as a 2016 Hamburg gang-rape case where perpetrators received suspended sentences because of their migrant status. It ends with a dedication to "rape victims in Europe who were betrayed by our legal system."

The mainstream critics hate Citizen Vigilante, which is a badge of honor these days.  But is it really so shocking that the commentary within the popular zeitgeist is shifting to address a problem which concerns the majority of the western population?  Did the political left really believe that they could engineer a foreign invasion without the public speaking out?  Did they really think they could control the narrative forever?

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:30

The Myth Of Price Controls

The Myth Of Price Controls

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The Cuban dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s recent admission that Cuba’s generalized price caps failed to contain inflation, generated shortages, encouraged illegal markets, and reduced tax revenues is another confirmation of a much older economic lesson: price controls do not solve inflationary pressures, and they intensify the distortions they are meant to prevent.

The Cuban case is especially revealing because the criticism comes not from ideological opponents but from the regime that imposed the controls and later conceded their failure.

According to Díaz-Canel’s own remarks, price controls in Cuba produced the opposite of their intended effect: instead of stabilizing prices, they encouraged product scarcity, illegal-market activity, higher effective prices, and falling tax revenues. The government’s decision to eliminate price controls therefore amounts to an empirical acknowledgment that administrative decrees could not keep pace with economic reality.

This episode matters beyond Cuba because it captures the core mechanism of price control failure. When official prices are fixed below levels that would clear the market, legal suppliers reduce availability, quality deteriorate, and transactions migrate to informal channels where the real market price reappears, often with a premium for risk and scarcity. Thus, inflation is not abolished by decree but only transferred from the official statistics into queues, shortages, and the underground market.

The Austrian School of Economics has long argued that prices are not arbitrary numbers but indispensable signals coordinating dispersed knowledge across an economy. Ludwig von Mises claimed that intervening against market prices does not eliminate the underlying forces of supply and demand but rather creates secondary distortions that generate demands for additional intervention. Friedrich Von Hayek reminded us that market prices transmit information that no planner can centrally aggregate in real time, making administrative price fixing structurally destructive.

From this standpoint, price controls always fail because they attack symptoms of disequilibrium rather than the causes. Inflation is caused by monetary expansion, fiscal excess, and government intervention. Capping prices cannot restore equilibrium; it only disguises the visible expression of official price measures for a short time. Every nation that implemented price controls experienced repressed inflation, scarcity, and the transfer of exchange into underground markets.

Modern empirical research is almost unanimous. A broad review of studies on price controls and limits finds near-universal evidence of shortages and persistent inflation, along with lower quality, weaker innovation, and long-run welfare losses. Historical evidence from the United States also shows that wartime price controls and the Nixon-era stabilization program only brought rationing, shortages, and renewed price surges.

The empirical literature is particularly clear on resource misallocation. Lucas Davis and Lutz Kilian estimate that residential natural gas price controls in the United States from 1954 to 1989 created shortages of almost 20 percent and widespread supply disruptions. Edward Glaeser and Erzo Luttmer find that rent control in New York generated scarcity and misallocated housing by encouraging occupancy patterns disconnected from household size, imposing substantial annual welfare losses.

Other studies show that the negative effect of controls quickly adds other costs. H. E. Frech III and William C. Lee estimate that the welfare cost of gasoline queuing during the U.S. oil crises exceeded $5 billion in California alone, illustrating how suppressed prices frequently reappear as waiting costs and widespread economic losses. Research also finds that quality tends to deteriorate under ceilings because producers attempt to remain profitable by lowering inputs when they are prevented from charging market prices.

One of the worst outcomes of price controls is the expansion of the black economy. When the legal price becomes uneconomic for suppliers, transactions disappear or go off the books, where sellers can charge prices closer to actual scarcity conditions. Even the European Commission, the World Bank, and the FMI recognize this pattern, admitting that controls drive activity toward illegal markets, reduce tax collection, and create significant distortions in the economy. Gas price controls in Spain resulted in an increase in prices for 75% of consumers when the government imposed a cap on the 25% that used the state-regulated tariff. Gasoline price controls in China led to enormous losses in refineries and a widespread ban on refined product exports that resulted in multi-billion yuan losses in tax revenue.

This fiscal effect is not irrelevant. When activity shifts into informal channels, governments lose taxable transactions even as they face stronger political pressure to subsidize shortages, police markets, and intensify enforcement. The result is a destructive cycle in which intervention reduces formal output, shrinks the tax base, and then becomes the rationale for additional intervention.

Price-control defenders believe that inflation is caused primarily by the pricing decisions of firms rather than monetary and macroeconomic imbalances, and they think that governments can set prices. However, every single instance of price controls leads to scarcity and worse results, but interventionists do not care because they blame the problems caused by intervention on the lack of enough repression. The evidence is clear. Price controls can alter the formal expression of inflation, but they do not remove price pressures or the underlying causes; instead, they convert open price increases into scarcity, rationing, lower quality, and underground-market premium.

Inflation cannot be solved by declaring prices illegal. Furthermore, price controls perpetuate high inflation by destroying the elements that can help prices normalize, competition and technology, as well as innovation. Inflation is solved through sound money, prudent fiscal policy, and a market process that allows prices to coordinate production and consumption.

Governments never reduce prices; they increase them by spending and printing. All a government can do is facilitate inflation reduction by controlling spending and opening the economy to competition. Cuba’s reversal is therefore more than just a change in domestic policy; it serves as a reminder that regimes committed to intervention will eventually clash with economic realities that price controls cannot disguise.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:05

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from the report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Next Commodity Supercycle Has Already Started

The Next Commodity Supercycle Has Already Started

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

The world rotates between two sectors: technology and energy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Has Changed: China Weaponises the Periodic Table

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The End of the Bretton Woods Hegemon

The broader geopolitical structure underpinning commodity markets is fracturing.

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

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

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

Three things have now broken that model:

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

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

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

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

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

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

*  *  *

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the automakers in the humanoid robot lead:  

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

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

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

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

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

Early industrial deployment of these bots:

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

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

Emerging players:

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

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

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

Complete overview of the auto industry by company developing humanoids:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing

California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California's Gasoline Crisis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire

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

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

1. Increasing control of scarce spectrum assets,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those rivals include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naveen Athrappully and Reuters contributed to this report.

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

Pages