AI Is Taking Thousands Of Jobs; Is Yours At Risk?

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

Just as the internet radically changed how America conducts business, artificial intelligence (AI) is also making waves in the workplace by taking thousands of jobs. It’s an outcome that industry experts have warned would happen, and professionals across multiple employment sectors have already been affected.

Beyond artists and content creators, AI is also impacting professionals in marketing, technology, translation, various levels of administration, and management. It has been a silent and ongoing trend for two years, but tech insiders say this is just the beginning.

A senior software engineer at Microsoft, Nandita Giri, shared her thoughts with The Epoch Times on what kind of near-term changes Americans can expect as a result of ramped-up workplace AI integration.

“AI is particularly effective at replacing routine, predictable tasks ... jobs in data entry, customer support, transcription, and logistics are the most vulnerable,” Giri said. “In software engineering, even some junior [developer] testing roles are being replaced or reshaped with AI-driven tooling. Back-office operations across health care, finance, and legal are also at high risk.”

Giri has observed a shift away from human workers in favor of AI in enterprise software development, where she said companies are quietly removing what they call “coordination overhead.” She said this is happening as AI tools become more reliable for things like task triage, scheduling, and summarization.

“AI agents have enabled a single engineer to manage what used to be a multi-person workflow, especially in automation pipelines and internal support tasks,” she said.

Restructuring Workflow

Cahyo Subroto, founder of the AI-powered data extraction platform MrScraper, agrees with this perspective.

“I’ve spent the last few years building systems that automate work, so I’ve seen firsthand where AI adds value and where it quietly pushes people out of the picture,” Subroto told The Epoch Times.

Like Giri, Subroto said that the jobs most in danger of AI replacement are those that rely heavily on structured, repetitive digital labor.

“That includes early-stage analysts, junior QA [quality assurance] testers, data entry staff, and even support roles in HR and customer service,” he said.

Subroto explained that when AI can learn workflow patterns, it can perform them faster and without the payroll cost. “At my last company, I watched a client eliminate three QA positions after switching to a tool that could auto-generate test cases and report bugs in real time.”

These decisions are based strictly on efficiency, he added. “That’s what makes this shift so difficult to stop.”

In January, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released a report that estimated 92 million jobs would be displaced by AI by 2030. The think tank surveyed more than 1,000 of the world’s largest employers, accounting for 22 industry groups and more than 14 million workers.

There is a silver lining, however. The WEF—and many others—predict that AI will also create new jobs and reshape existing positions, allowing current employees in various sectors to focus on more high-value tasks instead of routine work.

A robot sprinkles cheese over a pizza at the Institute for Artificial Intelligence of the University of Bremen, Germany, on March 8, 2017. Ingo Wagner/dpa/AFP via Getty Images

Jobs with declining demand include customer service representatives, claims adjusters, bank tellers, graphic designers, accountants, and auditors, the WEF report said.

Subroto believes much of the shift toward AI will be subtle. “Instead of replacing people, we’re restructuring the workflow to rely on AI for the mechanical parts, while humans take on broader accountability.”

“That’s a harder conversation because it’s not about job loss. It’s about job transformation, and not everyone will be equipped and ready to make that jump,” he said.

Big Changes Ahead

In May, Microsoft announced plans to lay off 3 percent of its employees across the board, affecting roughly 6,000 people. In a statement to CNBC, a spokesperson for the tech giant said, “We continue to implement organizational changes necessary to best position the company for success in a dynamic marketplace.” The spokesperson confirmed that the job cuts weren’t related to worker performance.

It’s reportedly the largest series of layoffs at Microsoft since 2023.

This arrives on the heels of reported cuts at Amazon, which in January said it would lay off what it called a “small number” of its communications and sustainability employees. It followed that by announcing in March plans to eliminate 14,000 managerial positions by early next year.

Among those who lost their job at Microsoft is former senior data scientist Tatiana Teppoeva, founder and CEO of One Nonverbal Ecosystem. She told The Epoch Times that increased tech layoffs alongside the rise of AI integration is an industry red flag.

“This has sparked genuine concerns over the future need for human programmers and signals a real, accelerating shift in how companies evaluate which human roles are essential,” Teppoeva said.

Like Giri and Subroto, Teppoeva identified industries that have a lot of unchanging, rules-based tasks like back-end software development, data entry, finance, and logistics as areas with a high probability of AI job replacement.

“The most realistic near-term disruption is task-level automation, not full job replacement,” she said. “For example, in sales, AI tools can draft outreach emails or analyze deal data, but they cannot replicate the human-to-human trust, nonverbal signals, and presence that close high-ticket deals.”

Teppoeva said the human-AI gap is now a point of focus for her business. “Helping sales teams, executives, and companies align their human communication, body language, voice, [and] nonverbal presence [is] what advanced AI tools still can’t do,” she said, then added, “At least not yet.”

On June 2, a Midwest-based web content manager for a major U.S. company—who asked to be identified only as “Tom”—was laid off with the rest of his department and most of the company’s marketing staff. Tom requested the company not be identified out of fear it could affect his severance.

Having worked in web development for more than 15 years, Tom said he saw the “AI blitz” coming and had a gut hunch it would only be a matter of time before he was made redundant.

“The worst part is the lack of honesty,” Tom said. “Companies aren’t being straight with people, they’re just saying things like ’sales are down‘ or ’we need to improve efficiency,' but the reality is it’s about increasing profit by any means.”

Tom said he has a friend who spent nearly two decades working in marketing and kept up with changing industry trends before being laid off a year ago because of AI integration.

“There are entire careers with university degrees behind them that are ending now,” Tom said.

“It’s not necessarily a one-to-one ratio,” he added. “Maybe an AI tool automates half of a department’s workload. That means you can redistribute the remaining work amongst a smaller team.”

Since the Hollywood writers’ strike in 2023, the potential for AI to disrupt careers has been under a microscope, and it’s easy to see why. Out of more than 80,000 jobs cut in May 2023, nearly 4,000 were due to AI, according to a layoffs report from the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas, Inc.

The trend continued last year. In 2024, the Society of Authors surveyed 12,500 workers in different creative industries, revealing many had already lost work to AI. According to the survey, 26 percent of illustrators and 36 percent of translators had already lost work because of generative AI.

Tesla co-founder Elon Musk also shared his views on AI job replacement during the Viva Technology conference in Paris in 2024, following news that Tesla planned to lay off 10 percent of its workforce.

A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the Tesla logo are seen in this image from Jan. 23, 2025. Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters

“If the computer and robot can do everything better than you, what meaning does your life have? ... In a negative scenario ... we’re in deep trouble,” Musk said.

Other tech insiders share this point of view. During an episode of “The Artificial Intelligence” show, Marketing AI Institute founder Paul Roetzer said AI is fundamentally reshaping the human workforce.

“It’s not like we’re drawing some difficult-to-find conclusion here,” Roetzer said when discussing Microsoft’s most recent layoffs. “If the CTO [chief technology officer] of the company is saying that within five years we expect 95 percent of all code to be written by AI, then what do you need a bunch of engineers for?”

Subroto used an example from his work, describing the use of AI for “task sequencing and code generation,” which allowed his company to launch features faster and fix bugs before users even saw them. However, he said the improved work efficiency came at the cost of no longer needing manual testers checking outputs line by line.

“These were smart, capable people, and yet the structure of the work changed so much that their role no longer made sense,” he said.

The current phase-out of human work roles due to increased AI efficiency is nuanced, but some don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.

A McKinsey Global Institute analysis from July 2023 predicted that 30 percent of total hours worked could be absorbed by generative AI by 2030. Researchers estimated that 11.8 million employees working in sectors with shrinking demand may need to shift into other departments, while roughly 9 million may need to change careers entirely.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 21:00

Lost To History: The Forgotten Thermonuclear Near-Disaster On Big Savage Mountain

Six decades ago, in a near-nuclear disaster erased from public memory, a U.S. Air Force B-52D Stratofortress—carrying two thermonuclear bombs—was torn apart six miles above the Appalachian Mountains. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer snapped off mid-flight, sending the bomber into an uncontrollable dive before it slammed into Big Savage Mountain in Western Maryland. The crash marked one of the closest nuclear near-misses on U.S. soil during the Cold War.

On January 13, 1964, a B-52D Stratofortress took off from Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts en route to Turner Air Force Base in Georgia as part of a Strategic Air Command mission called "Operation Chrome Dome." On board were five crew members and two thermonuclear bombs.

A heavily redacted USAF report on the mid-air accident of the nuclear-laden B-52D specified that a bulkhead structural failure occurred during severe turbulence that caused the vertical fin to separate. 

As the bomber broke up in mid-air, the pilot, Major Thomas McCormick, and co-pilot Captain Parker Peedin ejected and survived. However, three other crew members perished:

• Major Robert Townley (died in the crash)

• Tech Sgt. Melvin Wooten (died from injuries and exposure)

• Major Robert Payne (died from exposure after ejecting)

The crash drew national attention and mobilized hundreds of local volunteers for search and rescue efforts despite dangerous blizzard conditions across the Big Savage Mountain.

In 2014, Politico interviewed Gerald Beachy of the Grantsville Community Museum, which amassed a collection of crash memorabilia and wreckage from the bomber, who said it took USAF salvage operations several days to recover the thermonuclear bombs from the remote crash site.

The incident in the remote mountains of Western Maryland has been largely erased from public memory. It occurred at the height of the Cold War—just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This wasn't merely an air crash; it stands as one of the most serious nuclear weapons-related accidents on U.S. soil, even though the warheads were unarmed.

Reminders of the past are crucial as the nation braces for the 2030s—a decade in which the world is expected to fracture into a dangerous bipolar state, accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

Meanwhile, Europe is unleashing massive efforts to rebuild weapons stockpiles and scale up war readiness amid the ongoing war in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Trump administration is accelerating plans to expand defense capabilities and bolster hemispheric defense. The arms and technology race with China is no longer in snail mode—it's in full-blown hyperdrive, and with that comes many risks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 20:25

We Need A 'Kill Switch' On Foreign Powers Tampering With Our Electric Grid

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

It has long been acknowledged that the United States’ energy infrastructure isn’t particularly secure, a concern exacerbated by the lack of a central planning process for our nation’s piecemeal electric grid. Presidential administrations and Congress have been slow to address the problem, apparently daunted by the mere size and scope of the challenges the needed upgrades would present.

That needs to change now. The recent news that China apparently installed hidden “kill switches” in solar equipment sold to the U.S. was the latest in a long list of reasons to be concerned about our electricity infrastructure and the foolhardy rush to replace traditional energy sources with so-called “renewables” using technology that is often sourced from China.

As Reuters reported, “Rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues … Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilize power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said.”

As one source summarized it, “That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid.” Or, to put it in even simpler terms, the U.S. is purchasing Chinese equipment complete with a “kill switch” that would allow China to disable the U.S. power grid at any moment.

Even more concerning, the problem is not relegated to the United States. Britain’s GB News reported, “Chinese companies dominate the market for power inverters, with firms like Huawei and Sungrow controlling more than half the market in 2023, according to Wood Mackenzie research. The European Solar Manufacturing Council estimates that more than 200 gigawatts of European solar power capacity relies on Chinese-made inverters.” (One gigawatt is equal to one billion watts.)

As Christoph Podewils, the council’s secretary general, put it, “This means Europe has effectively surrendered remote control of a vast portion of its electricity infrastructure.”

The Chinese embassy in Washington dismissed the allegation.

The relatively sparse news coverage of this startling discovery is evidence of either the mainstream media’s complacency, or its intentional effort to downplay any development that might contradict its radical climate change narrative. Surely, this item led the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, right? Sadly, no.

If ever there was a wakeup call regarding the urgent need for the U.S. to be even more committed to energy independence, it has arrived in the form of China’s ability to remotely turn off the U.S. power grid.

Fortunately, President Trump is working hard to reverse the Biden administration’s disastrous mandates that would have replaced affordable, reliable and increasingly clean traditional energy sources with untrustworthy and costly alternatives. Trump’s early declaration of a national energy emergency defined the dangers of relying on foreign sources of energy and spelled out several needed steps, including upgrades to our energy infrastructure.

But the added knowledge of Chinese subterfuge embedded within crucial components being installed in the U.S. electric grid adds even more urgency to the need to not only produce more domestic energy, but also to domestically develop more technology and manufacture more of the parts we currently import from outside U.S. borders.

While U.S. security experts should be lauded for discovering the Chinese “kill switches,” how many security threats have gone undetected? So-called “renewable” technologies like wind and solar were already suspect in regard to their reliability, as evidenced by the recent massive grid failure in Spain, Portugal and parts of France. We should be all the more wary of “alternatives” when the parts used to connect them to our power grids are sourced from foreign adversaries.

The episode again highlights the vital need for tougher regulations to ensure our nation’s energy security. The Empowerment Alliance’s model legislation – the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security act (ARC-ES) – would require “energy sources that are primarily produced within the U.S. and infrastructure that will reduce our reliance on foreign nations for critical materials and manufacturing.”

The time has passed for any reasonable argument suggesting that such legislation is not urgently needed, both at the federal and state levels. The notion of attacks from foreign adversaries on America’s energy infrastructure has often been the stuff of fantasy and “what-if” scenarios. Those have now been replaced with concrete evidence of nefarious, embedded components from a foreign superpower, just waiting for someone in Beijing to flip a switch and send Americans hurtling into a powerless abyss.

Let it sink in: China was secretly embedding technology in components shipped to the U.S. that could have triggered a massive power outage.

It’s time for Congress to embed a “kill switch” of its own on the ability of foreign countries to disable the U.S. power grid. That assurance can only come when we take America’s energy independence from being a worthy goal to a mandated reality.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 19:50

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner

Does your state support your 2nd Amendment rights or make it exceedingly difficult to keep and bear arms?

Here’s your chance to find out!

Ammo.com ranked the worst states for gun owners in 2025 by analyzing each state’s current laws, pending laws, concealed carry guidelines, self-defense statutes, and 2A-centric taxes.

Continue reading to see where your state stands!

Jump to a state: AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Report Highlights:

• Hawaii is the #1 worst state for gun owners due to strict purchasing and carry laws, as well as defying the Supreme Court on the individual’s right to carry.

• Massachusetts is the #2 worst state for gun owners due to its permit-to-purchase and reciprocity laws.

• California, New York, and Illinois take the #3, #4, and #5 spots in our list of worst states for gun ownership due to strict purchasing and carrying requirements.

• Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine take spots #25, #24, and #23 due to new restrictive legislation with some relaxed carry laws.

• Some states rank worse than others due to excessive infringements, additional taxes, and the current governors’ 2A statements.

• State and local laws defining “stand your ground” and “duty to retreat” vary, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

What Did We Measure?

Let’s take a moment to analyze which factors make a state the worst for gun ownership. If we only consider purchasing requirements, then we neglect carrying requirements and use of force thresholds. So, we came up with a list based on the following factors:

1. Current gun laws

2. Current purchase laws

3. Current concealed carry weapon (CCW) guidelines

4. Reciprocity between other states

5. Sales tax

6. Current governor’s voting history

7. Stand your ground laws

Note: We are not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice. No information on Ammo.com is intended to be construed as legal advice. It’s essential to look at each state’s current local laws in addition to federal laws. For example, most states define “stand your ground” and “duty to retreat” differently. Explore the links below to better understand your state’s laws.

Read the full report on the Worst States to be a Gun Owner (2025 Updated) here…

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 18:05

Data Center Construction Boom Faces Local Resistance In 28 States

Authored by John Haughley via The Epoch Times,

The need for data centers to drive 21st century cloud computing and win the AI race with China is a matter of such national urgency that Energy Secretary Chris Wright describes it as America’s “next Manhattan Project.”

But assessing how many data centers—a ubiquitous yet vague term for “server farms,” supercomputer networks, bitcoin and crypto “mines”—exist right now in the United States is, in itself, a foray into quixotic cloudy computing.

There were a “reported” 5,426 data centers in the United States in March, according to Statista.

Meanwhile, Denmark-based Data Center Map ApS counts 3,761 listed data centers in the United States. Data Centers.com, a global technology marketplace headquartered in Colorado, maintains there are 2,483 of the centers now operating nationwide.

These and other estimates confirm the consensus that the United States has five to 10 times the number of functioning data centers as any other country in the world, including China.  In fact, approximately half the planet’s data centers are in the United States, according to a ranking by Visual Capitalist.

And yet, as Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said during the April 30 Hill & Valley Forum, an annual gathering of congressional lawmakers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists, the need to build out the nation’s electric grid to power more data centers is “one of two existential threats we face as a country;” the other beingIran’s development of a nuclear weapon. If that need is not met, the nation will “lose the AI race with China.”

The projected energy demand for data centers will triple by 2028, the Department of Energy estimated last year. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation forecast the same number a year earlier.

These “load growth” assessments, coming after years of relative stagnation in electricity usage, were issued after the late-2022 advent of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. That shockwave rattled utilities, regional transmission operators, and state public utility commissions, sending them scrambling to scale-up electrical grids to accommodate this projected growth in data centers.

The result was a data center building spree. CBRE, a Texas-based commercial real estate services company, in late 2024 projected that more than 4,750 data center projects would break ground in the United States in 2025, “nearly as many … as already exist” nationwide.

New buildings to house data centers constitute “the fastest-growing segment of nonresidential construction planning,” according to a September 2024 Dodge Construction Network analysis.

However, there is no single-source registry documenting how many proposed data centers are now being reviewed before local planning boards.

That vagary was the genesis of Data Center Watch, a research firm tracking the trend and opposition to it, said founder Robert McKenzie, a former Columbia University adjunct professor of international and public affairs.

Much of the media coverage of data centers was “very specific, anecdotal” local news and social media reports, McKenzie told The Epoch Times.

“We hadn’t seen anybody pull together all the data. So we thought, ‘What would happen if you looked across the whole country?’ We weren’t sure what we were going to find.”

Data Centers.com, a global “technology marketplace” headquartered in Colorado, shows the locations of 2,483 data centers currently in operation in the United States. Illustration by The Epoch Times

In weekly updates gleaned from open-source Google searches, Data Center Watch has tracked two trends, McKenzie said, with the first being a larger number of data center proposals than initially thought.

The second trend is local opposition, which also helps track new data center projects.“There’s lots of anecdotal reporting from many, many outlets and bloggers about …local pushback here, pushback there; there’s more local opposition than certainly we would have imagined,” he said. “In other words, we keep hearing how these projects are coming, but they’re already here.”

In addition, load forecasting is difficult because many data center developers are submitting multiple proposals but only intend to build a few.At February’s National Association of Regional Utility Commissions’ Winter Energy Policy Conference, ALN Policy and Law President Angela Navarro told state public utility commissioners that utilities are seeing data center developers “cue shopping, looking for the best deal.”

Not in My Backyard

The rapid expansion of data centers is facing resistance from locals across the nation.

A March Data Center Watch report charted the emergence of at least 142 ad hoc local groups, across 28 states, “organizing to block data center construction and expansion” with $18 billion in proposed data centers “blocked” and $46 billion “delayed” between March 2023 and March 2025.

McKenzie acknowledged that the report, like Data Center Watch’s weekly updates, is an incomplete tabulation. It’s derived from “public statements or what’s happening at a town hall meeting, if there’s, like, a press release, or if there’s media coverage,” he said.

In an aerial view, an Amazon Web Services data center is seen in Stone Ridge, Va., on July 17, 2024. The United States had a reported 5,426 data centers in March 2025, a number the Energy Department projects will triple by 2028. Building data centers to power cloud computing has become a national priority as AI use soars, though the boom faces hurdles such as local opposition and power shortages. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Nonetheless, what emerges is a tip-of-iceberg indication that data center proposals are roiling communities nationwide.

“Candidly, when we did [the March report], we thought, ‘Holy smokes, $64 billion in blocked or delayed?’” he said. “That gives you a sense of how much pushback there is at the local level.”

A February survey of 800 people in “16 key states targeted for AI data center development—where OpenAI and others are exploring expansion”—found 93 percent of respondents agreed that “cutting-edge AI data centers are vital to the United States.”

But only 35 percent of those queried in the survey “would vote ‘yes’ to data center construction in their hometown” if such a proposition was presented to them.

“There is clearly a disconnect between what the local residents experience and what is being sold to these communities from developers,” survey author Joe Warnimont said.

“It’s not necessarily about opposing technology in their communities,” he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s more that people in these communities want to maintain control over resources and development, whereas that’s clearly not necessarily the case right now.”

The Data Center Watch report, HostingAdvice.com survey, and a casual Google search unspool a gamut of objections. Some are unique to specific sites in specific communities, but most cite common concerns such as demand for electricity, need for water, noise complaints, and possible devaluation of nearby property values.

Opponents generally question whether the projects will generate the jobs other uses could create. They often allege that local governments are being seduced by developers into offering tax breaks and incentives—shielded by non-disclosure agreements. Or, they report that local governments are being preempted by state legislatures that limit municipal planners from rejecting or modifying proposals.

A construction crew works on a CloudHQ data center in Ashburn, Va., on July 17, 2024. As projected data centers boom nationwide, state utility commissions are racing to expand electrical grids to meet soaring demand. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Bipartisan Backlash

The backlash against the projects is bipartisan. Locals don’t welcome data center projects despite enthusiasm for AI, making data centers the new not-in-my-back-yard flashpoint, the Data Center Watch report concluded.

“Where communities once rallied against factories, warehouses, or retail sprawl, they’re now opposing data centers,” the report states.

“From noise and water usage to power demands and property values, server farms have become a new target in the broader backlash against large-scale development. The landscape of local resistance is shifting—and data centers are squarely in the crosshairs.”

“I don’t know if [local opposition] has anything to do with political affiliation. It’s just, ‘Do I want this in my backyard or not?’” Warnimont said.

“This is absolutely across-the-aisle stuff,” Kamil Cook, a climate and clean energy associate with Public Citizen Texas, said about local opposition to data center development in the Lone Star State.

In rural Texas, that means data center opponents are typically bright red Republicans.

“Most of the groups we work with are, like, Republican-leaning people who are wanting to stop this build out,” he told The Epoch Times. “All the groups we’ve been supporting have had very close ties with their local Republican Party. It’s very local, like … the Republican county chair, for example.”

Four Waves

Data Center Coalition communications director Jon Hukill said most criticisms leveled at data center projects are standard land-use challenges, which would surface regardless of what the specific proposal was.

Hukill’s six-year-old, 36-member, Washington-based trade association represents “hyperscalers”—corporations such as Meta, AWS, and Microsoft—and “co-location” companies, such as Equinix, which own data centers leased to operators.

“I think what you’re seeing is reflective of the increasing number of states and communities where data centers are developing,” he told The Epoch Times. He noted that not only are these operations new in public perception but many are being proposed and built in “secondary” and “tertiary” markets that historically have had little industrial development.

Hukill said there have been four general waves in the evolution of data centers, which emerged in the 2000s with the growth of the internet.

The first wave, he said, was in New York and New Jersey, “because of the closeness to Wall Street—the need for very fast transactions.”

The second wave took root in California’s Silicon Valley and in northern Virginia, which is commonly referred to as “Data Center Alley” and has the world’s most dense concentration of data centers, Hukill said.

The third wave is unfolding in secondary markets, such as suburban or exurban communities in Ohio and Georgia, he said, and increasingly, in tertiary markets as well.

“Really, just in the last couple of years, we’ve seen the development of tertiary markets where there’s really been very little history of data center development whatsoever. Think of places like Mississippi, Alabama, Iowa, Indiana,” Hukill said. “This is where the opposition is coming from.”

There are numerous reasons for that development, such as less expensive land, affordable energy, water availability, and local governments eager for economic development.

“There’s been much more interest in [tertiary markets] where you’re starting to see more and more investments—you know, ‘billion with a B’-type investments—in some of those states where, typically, those were only happening in those primary markets,” Hukill said. “It’s important to understand the data center industry is not monolithic.”

Land-use attorney Colleen Gillis, founder of Reston, Va.-based Curata Partners, is a veteran of planning and zoning battles before local boards in Loudoun County and elsewhere in Data Center Alley. She’s also a member of the Urban Land Institute’s Data Center Product Council. The organization’s Local Guidelines for Data Center Development address common issues raised by developers and critics.

In an aerial view, data centers are seen near a neighborhood in Ashburn, Va., on July 17, 2024. Northern Virginia, known as “Data Center Alley,” hosts the world’s highest concentration of data centers. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

“You know,” Gillis told The Epoch Times, “some of the challenges data centers have are contextual. Where’s it located? What’s the visual or compatibility impact there?

“In some jurisdictions where, perhaps, the population growth is rapid, and traffic is a challenge, and school building or school capacity is a challenge,” Gills continued, criticism is general angst over growth and development, not necessarily specifically about data centers.

Developers have recognized that these local challenges are legitimate, she said. “It’s a little bit like AI learning. Data center companies get better at understanding what do they need to do to be a good neighbor.”

But “misconceptions” remain, Gillis said, including, “If you have a data center in Place A, the data center you put in Place B is going to be the same—the same impacts and the same challenges, the same use of water, the same use of electricity.”

Point Counter Point

The most commonly cited issues with proposed data center projects are their voracious demand for electricity and  water, resulting noise, and job generation.

Other issues, such as the tax revenues the projects generate, development incentives shielded by non-disclosure agreements, or state legislatures preempting municipal planners from rejecting proposals, are also among common issues, each meriting separate analyses.

Electricity

Fast-tracked data center development will cost ratepayers in 13 Midwest states as much as $9.4 billion beginning this year, according to Monitoring Analytics, the grid’s independent market monitor. Those 65 million consumers span 1,100 member utilities within the PJM Interconnection regional transmission organization.

According to a December 2024 Energy Department analysis, data centers consume 10 to 50 times as much energy, per square foot, as a commercial office building of similar size.

An Amazon Data Services data center campus in Pennsylvania’s Lucerne County will eventually consume the same electricity it takes to power the entire city of Pittsburgh, a senior manager at Amazon, told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

Goldman Sachs Research forecasts global power demand from data centers will increase 50 percent by 2027 and by as much as 165 percent by the end of the decade.

And whereas data centers consumed about 4 percent of the country’s electricity in 2023, they could account for up to 12 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption by 2028, according to a December 2024  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.

Protect PT Executive Director Gillian Graber, whose nonprofit opposes a proposed data center project in Westmoreland County, said among reasons local residents are concerned is “the demand that data centers will bring onto the grid.”

“Pennsylvanians could see an increased cost in utilities as a result—electric and gas utilities,” she told The Epoch Times.

“The availability of power is the pacing challenge of industry, and that’s true of the data center industry, but it’s also true of all 21st century industries,” Hukill said.

“Part of the reason [to expand the grid] is because of the demand for data center services. Partially, it’s because of re-shoring and manufacturing. It’s the electrification of everything, businesses, electric vehicles, appliances. These are large loads, too.”

Many data center developers prefer renewable energies such as wind, solar, and nuclear rather than natural gas or coal, but cannot wait for small modular nuclear reactors to become widely available. They’ll go where energy is available. That’s according to Aaron Tinjum, vice president of energy policy for the Data Center Coalition, speaking during a February energy policy conference in Washington.

Many are also seeking to “co-locate” on utility power plant sites, retired coal-fired plants, or to build their own electric generators that, instead of tapping into the grid, can add capacity.

A data center owned by Amazon Web Services (front R) is under construction beside the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Berwick, Pa., on Jan. 14, 2024. Ted Shaffrey/AP Photo

“We’ve got clients who said, ‘You know, look, it’s going to take you too long to get the power to us. We‘ll figure out self-generation between now and then [and] whatever we don’t need, we’ll sell back to you,” Gillis said.

Data centers need baseload power, Loudoun County Supervisor Mike Turner said in his influential June 2024 white paper for local planners, A Strategy for a Changing Paradigm.

Renewables aren’t sufficient for data center needs, he notes. “The average data center would require 1,000 acres of solar panels,” he said, noting the 62-turbine wind energy plant on Martha’s Vineyard would only provide enough juice to support about 10 of Loudoun County’s data centers.

Hukill cited a December 2024 analysis by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission, which said that “Data centers are currently paying the full cost of service for the energy they use, and current rates appropriately allocate costs to the customers responsible for incurring them” without raising costs for others.

Water

Data centers consume a great deal of water to cool servers. According to a July 2024 University of Tulsa analysis, a single data center can consume up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That’s “enough to supply thousands of households or farms.”

Microsoft’s 2022 Sustainability Report showed that its data center water consumption increased 34 percent from 2021 to 2022. A Meta 2023 report said its data centers used approximately 1.29 billion gallons in 2022.

But data center technology is evolving and few “data centers 2.0 and 3.0” need that type of water use, with most recycling water and using different technologies to cool servers, Gillis said.

“A couple of years ago, all the data centers [used] evaporative cooling. That meant that they used a lot of water to cool down the data center.” Few do that now, she said.

Citing Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission report, Hukill said in 2023, “83 percent of data centers in Virginia used the same amount of water—or less—than the average large office building.”

However, in the same tertiary markets where energy is often available and relatively inexpensive, such as outside Phoenix, Arizona, where dozens of data center campuses were operating in December 2024, water can be scarce.

A May Bloomberg News analysis determined that two-thirds of data centers built in the United States are “in highly water-stressed areas.” About 20 percent of “rely “moderately to highly stressed watersheds” resulting from drought and other factors, Berkeley Lab research scientist Arman Shehabi wrote in 2024.

Water cooling pumps and pipes are seen at Intergate.Manhattan, a data center owned by Sabey Data Center Properties, in the lower Manhattan area in New York on March 20, 2013. The vast water use of data centers is one of the top concerns for proposed projects nationwide, along with their heavy power demand, noise, and limited job creation. Stan Honda/AFP via Getty Images

Data center water-use can be a factor even in areas with abundant water resources, such as western Pennsylvania.

“In addition to your typical site location, noise, light pollution, those kind of things, water usage is a big concern,” Graber said. “These data centers will be run by gas-fired power plants, and gas-fired power plants need gas, and we already have a tremendous amount of water usage from the fracking industry on our local resources.”

In Pennsylvania’s Westmoreland County, Beaver Run Reservoir, a major regional source of drinking water, was affected by extended periods of drought  “at least two years in a row,” Graber said. Meanwhile, “fracking companies were still withdrawing our water. So while every day Pennsylvanians were asked to conserve water, the fracking industry was still taking the water.”

Water used to cool data center servers can be used for “other things like golf courses.”  It eventually finds its way back into creeks and streams and is processed through the water cycle, Graber said.

However, water used to frack the gas that fuels data centers “has to be put into injection wells. It can’t be cleaned to the point where it’s going to be used for human consumption and, so, it completely takes this water out of the water table.”

Noise

Generators, HVAC cooling systems, and drawing power from energy from the grid can produce a buzz “comparable to the noise of a lawnmower or a busy city street.” At up to 96 decibels that could lead to hearing loss at sustained exposure, according to a Sensear study.

But again, as a Data Center Knowledge primer points out, noise complaints from nearby residents have prompted adjustments such as “mufflers” and “dampeners” to keep noise levels off-site down.

Data centers are actually “quieter than many common sounds—jets, lawn-mowers, conversations at three feet,” Hukill said. Data center sound “is not harmful to human hearing, and is rarely loud enough to violate noise ordinances,” he said, adding, “A large majority of data centers do not generate noise complaints.”

That claim is documented in the Virginia Legislature analysis, he said. “There are now sound dampeners. If a community says that the chilling units that sit on top of a data center [are] maybe too loud, data center companies have worked to put in sound dampeners to reduce that noise.”

Server banks inside a data center at AEP headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, on May 20. John Minchillo/AP Photo

Job Generation

According to Area Development Magazine, building a typical data center creates hundreds of jobs for skilled trades such as electricians and engineers. But long-term, on-site employment generated by data centers is generally lower than that of other industries like manufacturing or corporate headquarters, according to an August 2024 Pro Publica report.

The report noted that “data centers employ relatively few people on a permanent basis. Overseeing the servers doesn’t take much labor compared with other large industrial outfits, and the facilities are easy to distinguish from other hulking manufacturing buildings because of their small or mostly empty parking lots.”

The relatively few jobs—some describe data centers as “one job for every two acres occupied”—was a recurring criticism in the HostingAdvice.com survey, Warnimont said.

“I would definitely agree” that’s among the biggest reasons why people oppose them, he said, noting that many people say, “If it brings a ton of jobs …  maybe I would like it. But if not, maybe not.”

However, the lack of job creation surrounding data centers “is a common misperception,” Hukill said, pointing to a February PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.  The report determined that between 2017 and 2023, “the data center industry supported up to 4.7 million jobs across the country,” with each direct data center job supporting “more than six jobs elsewhere” in the United States.

“There might be this common conception out there that if you go to an average data center, it may have 50, maybe 100, full-time badged employees,” he said. “But those numbers really don’t capture the scope of the number of jobs that are supporting that data center.”

For instance, Hukill said, a co-location or “colo” data center that leases space to computer network operators, similar to the way a retail shopping works, adds another layer of employees who manage and maintain the property.

In that situation, in addition to employees of the company that owns the building, you have “all the other tenants, employees that are technical workers and high-tech workers that keep the servers running,” he said. Those employees are “typically not counted” in many employment counts.

Transparency

Objections may vary from proposal to proposal and site to site. But a common claim is that state and local governments offer data center projects tax incentives, often shielded from public scrutiny through non-disclosure agreements under the guise of proprietary corporate intelligence.

The lack of transparency fosters suspicion and anger, Cook said. “Just from our experience, it seems like one of the big concerns is that, yeah, there is no community outreach.”

He added, “There’s no method by which the community can be informed in a way that actually makes it seem like their voice is valued and that they have a choice in these matters.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 17:30

Where Are We Now?

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities (full pdf available here)

Just last weekend, we discussed Confusion versus Uncertainty. We have a long list of potential market moving-events, many of which might be at pivotal moments.

• The Big Beautiful Bill. Not letting tax cuts expire is crucial. Additional targeted tax cuts would also be helpful – especially anything that would drive growth and innovation.
   
  • The new “twist” here was the apparent falling out, played out via social media, between President Trump and Elon Musk. It seems to have quieted down, which is a good thing. While we are correct to worry about the deficit, at this point in time, moving the bill along seems more important. Will Thursday’s “social media storm” be a one-time event, or do we need to think about potential ramifications for the Trump agenda without Musk’s support? I don’t think so, but it is a concern.
     
• Tariffs.
   
  • With July 8th approaching rather quickly, and only the U.K. deal signed, it seems unlikely that many more fully done deals will be inked before the deadline. On the other hand, the market is pricing in a “worst” case of extensions on the pause. We get some deals announced with a few countries and we get a pause extension on countries where there has been some initial negotiating. That seems reasonable for the markets to assume, given everything that has gone on.
     
  • A deal with China seems to have become the top priority.
     
    • The Geneva Deal doesn’t seem to be working as either side expected.
    • The President is apparently getting directly involved with Xi, which is what the President wanted all along, though I’m not sure that is the best approach, given China has known this all along.
    • We fully expected the administration to try to isolate China. We were wrong. While it is encouraging to see how the policy is being portrayed, there is a real concern, especially amongst the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, that we might not get the international cooperation against China that many think is necessary for the plan to succeed.
    • Short-term wins versus longer-term risks. If the purpose of the deal is to buy time to prepare for more separation, then we have to structure the deal very carefully. China has the resources and global integration to also work aggressively during any “cooling off” period. Protecting IP and National Security Interests should remain an integral part of any deal. There is a real struggle on this front between short-term and longer-term needs.
    • The processing of rare earths and critical minerals. The one “card” that China seems to have immense control over is the processed/refined rare earths and critical minerals. While Greenland and Ukraine might help get access to these raw materials (though we don’t see that as the major problem), they don’t do much for us in terms of processing/refining where China continues to dominate the market. We don’t know just how big of a card this is (quite large if they are actually willing to use it broadly for an extended period), but getting these businesses up and running domestically should be the biggest priority of the admin once Budget 2025 is passed. It still would have made sense, according to the GIG, to also include close allies in this crucial supply chain, but that ship may have sailed.
       
  • Are tariffs tools to negotiate, there to generate revenue, or designed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.? Recently Japan cited some uncertainty, from their perspective (on the U.S. side) regarding what the goal is.
     
    • It seems reasonable to expect that after the Big Beautiful Bill is passed (I’m assuming that it will be passed), we will get more clarity on the direction the admin is headed in on tariffs. The President, even working almost 24/7, can only focus on so much, so getting the budget passed is likely taking his attention away from other things (and the bizarre “feud” on Thursday certainly doesn’t help). We should also learn whether the revenue was an artifice to pull in some votes to get approval for the bill (arguing that tariff revenues will offset some costs, until growth kicks in). The “revenue” side of tariffs might be less important after the bill gets passed. On the other hand, maybe the administration doesn’t want to “upset the apple cart” and risk not getting the bill passed? So, after the bill is passed, will we go back to being more aggressive on tariffs?
      
      
      This chart might be a bit simplistic (data centers and AI still play a huge role in the movements of the market, but it isn’t too far off).
       
• National Production for National Security. If that has the sound of something that might have been said in a Communist country, I’m okay with it. Prioritizing what is needed and pushing the agenda as aggressively as possible is key for our success and ability to compete with China down the road. Subsidies would help, but they don’t seem to be on the agenda with the urgency many of our National Security experts think is needed. On the other hand, deregulation is also a crucial step and that is something we have argued, since day 1, that Trump has specialized in. Why he didn’t start with deregulation and fighting NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is a question I would love to have answered (the chart above would look a LOT different if the admin had come out of the gates focused on this front rather than tariffs). Treasury Secretary Bessent talks about this as being one of the “legs of the stool” and the more we turn our attention to this, the better. While it is also designed to take jobs away from elsewhere and bring them to the U.S., it seems less aggressive than using tariffs and is far more in our own control.
   
• When, or if, will the impact of existing tariffs, policy uncertainty, or even confusion hit the economic data and the markets? We discuss this in our NFP Reaction, and remain convinced that the market, at these levels, has become too complacent with risks on the economic front. While backing off on tariffs has been great, and has greatly reduced the risk of recession, that is still a risk as the global economy takes time to adjust to the level of uncertainty (and even confusion) that has been set in motion since Inauguration Day. I completely believe the worst is behind us on the tariff headlines, but the impact has not been felt in the real world, and while 10% (or just higher) is “manageable,” there are likely going to be costs.
   
• Peace. While we argued peace in a short timeframe was achievable (peace in a single day seemed impossible), that has stalled, at least in Russia. We published a Drone Attack SITREP on Monday. The mix of carrots and sticks was confusing to many of the GIG members, and maybe it is surprising we are here. The geopolitical situation is different than the economic situation, but if I had to be cautious about something right now – it is the growing difference between how confidently the President predicted peace, and where we are now. It is “different” than tariffs with China, right? Maybe not?

Bottom Line

I still like rates. Friday’s move could have pushed the Fed’s second cut out to next year, while, for me, the jobs data solidified the chance of a July cut, with 3 to 4 for the year. 10s back to 4.5% is a buying opportunity, though a range of 4.2% to 4.6% seems about right. A bit of a wide range, but the volatility around so many of the topics listed above, especially the bill, still needs to be considered.

Credit boring. Crypto exciting.

Credit, which I think I understand, should do okay here. So far the calendar hasn’t slowed much, but credit has held in very well. Across the globe, anyone looking for corporate credit risk needs to come to the U.S. as the market is the only place big enough to offer diversification across industries, ratings, and maturities. Also, the companies issuing corporate debt are often global in nature, so the exposure isn’t confined to the U.S.

On Crypto, I don’t understand the rush for governments to get involved, but it seems that is the trajectory we are on. So long as corporations can add crypto to their balance sheets and see their stock valuations rise more than the amount of crypto they bought, I can understand why they would do that. However, I cannot understand that relationship, which is driving the process. I do understand anxiety around FX globally and deficits globally, but I’m still not sure how that translates into owing crypto – but certainly I am more tempted to jump back on the bandwagon than fight it here.

Equities. Maybe not “priced to perfection” but getting close. When we examine the list of risks, uncertainties, or even things to be confused about, the market seems positioned to the optimistic side. That could be proven correct, but the risk/reward has definitely shifted with the recent legs of this rally (China, chips, and deficit spending). The IPO market is wide open and that could be a big benefit not just to markets, but also for the economy as new and innovative companies are brought to the forefront of daily market headlines!

It has been great being on the road a lot (on the road again this week) and talking to so many of our clients, colleagues, and members of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group.

• There is a decent amount of concern about small and midsize businesses, especially related to tariffs.
• A blind faith that the consumer keeps consuming (which has been the correct call).
• A more optimistic outlook for dealing with China from most people, than generally expressed by our Geopolitical Intelligence Group. We had a great outing with two GIG colleagues from the CIA last week, demonstrating how we are moving deeper into national security and policy.

Today, I just wanted to conclude by thanking all of those who take time out of their hectic schedules to meet with, talk to, or even just respond to Academy Securities as it helps us grow and get better!

If we go back to today’s question “Where are We Now?” the answer is at some pivotal moments for some major drivers to kick into gear, or stumble, as they near the goal line.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:50

Chinese-Owned Firm Halts Construction On Battery Plant In America's EV Heartland

Chinese-owned AESC has halted construction of its $1.6 billion battery plant in America's emerging "Battery Belt," citing economic uncertainty tied to President Trump's trade war and tariffs and the potential early termination of federal clean energy subsidies.

Construction of AESC's electric-vehicle battery plant in Florence, South Carolina, began in 2023 after securing a deal with BMW to make battery cells. 

On Thursday, the company sent a letter to employees regarding the construction halt, as obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The letter laid out:

• Tariffs on Chinese-made machinery, steel, and aluminum, which significantly raise costs.

• A proposed tax bill in Congress that would end EV battery production subsidies early and restrict eligibility for China-linked companies.

• Broader industry pressure as automakers slow or cancel EV rollouts.

"Our intent is to finish construction of the facility once stability and predictability have returned to the market," Knudt Flor, AESC's chief executive for the U.S. and Europe, wrote in the memo.

Current and former employees told WSJ that construction of the building has been completed, but all work on installing equipment and battery cell assembly lines has been halted.

Sources noted that AESC would face steep tariffs on EV battery machinery imported from China and said that recent steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have further compounded the company's cost challenges.

In recent years, Biden-era green energy policies fueled a surge in battery factory construction across parts of the Midwest and Southeast, driven by cheap land, proximity to major automotive hubs, and generous state-level incentives. This region—stretching from Tennessee and Alabama to the Carolinas, Ohio, and Michigan—has become known as America's "Battery Belt."

Some major projects across the belt include:

• Ford and SK On: $11.4B battery and EV campuses in Tennessee and Kentucky

• LG Energy Solution: Multiple joint ventures with GM, Stellantis, and Honda in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana

• Hyundai and SK: $5B EV battery plant in Georgia

• Toyota: Expanding EV battery production in North Carolina

"Now many of those subsidies are being targeted by Republicans at the same time regulations and tax credits aimed at driving EV sales are also at risk," WSJ noted, adding, "The current version of a tax bill before Congress would end EV battery production subsidies a year early and make them unavailable to companies with ties to certain countries, including China."

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:15

Billions Spent On Data Centers - But Where Is The AI Adoption Rate?

This week, readers were given fresh insights from UBS (read: here & here), highlighting the explosive surge in data center investments. As we've noted before, one asset manager—backing a multi-billion-dollar AI data center project in Texas—described to us the current AI infrastructure buildout as a multi-year "sprint."

With hundreds of billions pouring into data center development—concentrated in Texas and the Heartland due to cheap land and reliable power—investors should be asking one critical question: how fast is AI adoption scaling across corporate America?

According to Goldman Sachs' latest AI Adoption Tracker for Q2 2025, the enterprise implementation of AI continues to expand, particularly across sectors most vulnerable to automation. At the same time, productivity gains are becoming more measurable, even as AI-related layoffs have yet to materialize. 

Analysts Jan Hatzius, Joseph Briggs, and others offered clients a clear snapshot of the current AI investment tsunami:

AI-related investment growth remains strong, particularly for semiconductor firms, where equity analysts expect revenue growth of 36% from current levels by the end of 2026. Since the release of ChatGPT, analysts have upgraded their end-2025 revenue projections for semiconductors by $200bn (0.7% of US GDP) and AI hardware enablers by $105bn (0.4%).

As for the AI adoption rate, analysts found that as of May, approximately 9.2% of U.S. firms reported using AI in the production of goods or services—up from 7.4% in 4Q24. 

The most significant quarter-over-quarter gains occurred in the education, information, finance, and professional services sectors.

"Large firms with 250+ employees continue to report the highest adoption rate (14.9%) while medium-sized firms with 100-249 employees reported the largest expected increase in adoption over the next 6 months (+4.7pp to 14.6%). Adoption rates have also accelerated among medium-sized firms with 150-249 employees," the analysts said. 

Certain subsectors—especially in computing, web hosting, and telecom—are seeing adoption rates exceed 30%. Broadcasting and telecommunications firms anticipate the largest adoption gains through the rest of 2025.

Given the increasing AI adoption rate, the analysts noted that AI's impact on employment metrics has been marginal:

AI's impact on the labor market remains limited and there is no sign of a significant impact on most labor market outcomes. AI-related job openings now account for 24% of all IT job openings and 1.5% of all job postings. AI has not been mentioned in major corporate layoff announcements in recent months and the unemployment rate for AI-exposed positions has reconciled with the broader unemployment rate.

However... 

We continue to observe large impacts on labor productivity in the limited areas where generative AI has been deployed. Academic studies imply a 23% average uplift to productivity, while company anecdotes imply similar efficiency gains of around 29%.

Here's what companies and trade organizations are saying about current and future AI adoption...

Ultimately, investors will need to see AI adoption across corporate America continue to climb in order to justify the massive infrastructure buildout.

The looming question now is: At what point does rising adoption trigger a wave of AI-driven layoffs?

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:15

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Limits On Florida Drag Show, Including No Minors Rule

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court has ruled that the city of Naples, Florida, can lawfully require a drag performance at this weekend’s Pride Fest event to be held indoors and restricted to adult audiences.

In a split June 6 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking local restrictions. The court found that Naples Pride, the nonprofit organizing the event, had waited too long to challenge the conditions after accepting the same terms in 2023 and 2024.

The majority concluded that the city’s decision to impose the restrictions was not based on the group’s viewpoint, but rather on public safety concerns. The judges also held that the performance venue—a city park—constitutes a “limited public forum,” where speech protections under the First Amendment are subject to greater regulation.

The court added that the performance could still go forward under the same conditions as in previous years—indoors and adults-only—and that the city had a strong argument that its rules were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu criticized the majority’s reasoning, arguing that the city’s restrictions were “undeniably viewpoint and content-based” and thus unconstitutional, regardless of whether the park is viewed as a traditional or limited public forum.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge John Steele issued a preliminary injunction barring Naples from enforcing the indoor and age-restriction requirements. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by the ACLU of Florida on behalf of Naples Pride, alleging violations of constitutional free speech rights.

Reacting to the 11th Circuit’s reversal, the ACLU of Florida called the decision “disappointing” and vowed to continue the legal fight. Naples Pride likewise criticized the ruling, but said it would comply with the restrictions, for now.

“We respect the rule of law and will comply with the restrictions—but we won’t pretend this is justice,” Callhan Soldavini, board member and corporate counsel for Naples Pride, said in a statement. “Righting the wrongs of injustice takes time, but make no mistake: we will keep fighting.”

The case now returns to the lower court, where Naples Pride’s claims for damages will proceed.

In response to the ruling, the Naples Police Department said on June 6 that the police would be on-site during the event to ensure public safety.

“As a result, the City may continue enforcing its event ordinance while the case proceeds,” the department said in a post on social media. “We remain committed to protecting public safety, upholding constitutional rights, and ensuring the safe use of public spaces.”

Meanwhile, the same court of appeals ruled in mid-May that a Florida restaurant known for hosting drag shows could continue hosting the performances pending further litigation in a case that challenges enforcement of the state’s Protection of Children Act.

The law prohibits the admission of children into live performances that Florida considers obscene for minors. However, the court found that the restrictions in the act were too vague as they applied to the shows held at the restaurant.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 11:40

Musk Hit Bessent 'Like A Rugby Player' In White House Fight, Bannon Claims

Long-simmering tensions between Elon Musk and other members of the Trump administration exploded into physical violence in mid-April, with Musk aggressively shouldering Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Bessent battling back, according to a second-hand account from Trump political advisor and Musk-despiser Steve Bannon. First reported by the Washington Post on Saturday, Bannon's tale comes amid a raging battle between Trump and Musk that's left Trump saying he has no desire to patch things up and assumes their relationship -- which by all accounts played a decisive role in Trump's return to power -- is over.  

The alleged fight between Musk and Bessent erupted after an Oval Office discussion over who should be the IRS acting commissioner (Reuters)

Citing what he'd been told by others, Bannon said the two rivals had been with Trump in the Oval Office to pitching their respective preferred picks for the role of acting IRS commissioner. According to earlier reporting by the New York Times, Bessent was irate that Musk had managed to go around him and install Gary Shapley in the role, despite the fact that the IRS reports to the Treasury Department. Bessent told Trump he wanted Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender in the slot -- and Trump agreed, capping a chaotic spectacle that saw the IRS overseen by three different acting commissioners in a single week. 

As they left the office and headed down a West Wing hallway, Bessent and Musk started insulting each other, Bannon said, with Bessent ridiculing Musk for claiming he would identify over a trillion dollars in government waste, fraud and abuse, with Bessent apparently claiming Musk was coming nowhere close: "You’re a fraud. You’re a total fraud!" 

That line of attack allegedly prompted Musk to slam his shoulder into Bessent's ribs, hitting him hard "like a rugby player," said Bannon. The Treasury secretary physically retaliated in some manner, before multiple bystanders outside the national security adviser's office intervened to break up the fight. Musk was then supposedly escorted from the West Wing. “President Trump heard about it and said, ‘This is too much’,” Bannon said. In the following days, Musk announced that he would start easing back from his role in the administration to give more attention to his many businesses.  

I've received reliable reports that Scott Bessent fought Musk from a classical Wall Street office boxing stance similar to below pic.twitter.com/eZ58tIOqFf

— Second City Bureaucrat (@CityBureaucrat) June 5, 2025

Bannon's gossipy, second-hand account in the Washington Post's decidedly Musk-hostile report came two days after the told the New York Times that he was pushing to have Musk deported. “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said, adding that he also told Trump to pursue a narcotics investigation against Musk. 

According to the Post, the Musk-Bessent fight was just one of many manifestations of friction between the world's richest man and others in the administration who resented his "move fast and break things" approach and the influence he wielded not as a Senate-confirmed cabinet member but as a mere "special government employee." Musk was seen as failing to stay in his ill-defined lane, with no better example than his bypassing of cabinet members by issuing direct, emailed commands to nearly every employee in the federal government: 

The first signs of trouble emerged in February, when an email landed in inboxes throughout the government directing federal employees to describe their five accomplishments over the past week. Cabinet officials and other agency leaders weren’t given advance notice of the memo, causing consternation at the highest levels of Trump’s administration.

This week's massive meltdown in the Trump-Musk relationship started when Musk lashed out against the "Big Beautiful Bill," calling Trump's cornerstone legislation a "disgusting abomination" and heaping scorn on House members who voted for it (Kentucky's Thomas Massie and Ohio's Warren Davidson were the sole GOP "no" votes).   

I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore.

This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination.

Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 3, 2025

Things quickly went downhill, with Trump threatening to kill Musk's SpaceX and Starlink contracts, only to have Musk announce he was immediately decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which NASA relies on to transport supplies and crew members to the International Space Station (he later eased back on that threat.) Musk also backed a suggestion that Trump be impeached, and said "the real reason [the Epstein files] have not been made public" is that Trump is in them. 

For now, the outright hostilities have eased, but there's little reason to think the Trump-Musk relationship will be meaningfully restored. As an unnamed administration ally close to the Trump and Musk camps told the Post, "There’s hope that there’s going to be a reconciliation. But it’ll never be the same.” 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 11:05

FTC Warns Of Rising Student Loan Scams, Says Fraudsters Took Millions From Borrowers

Authored by Chase Smith via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is warning borrowers to steer clear of student loan debt-relief scams, after shutting down a group of companies last month that allegedly charged millions in illegal fees and left customers worse off.

Graduates attend a commencement ceremony at Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., on May 29, 2025. Rick Friedman/AFP via Getty Images

The warning, issued June 6, comes as part of a broader push by the FTC to raise awareness about deceptive debt-relief schemes targeting Americans with student loans.

In a recent enforcement action, the agency permanently banned California-based Panda Benefit Services and its affiliates from the debt-relief industry. The FTC said the companies posed as partners of the Department of Education and promised borrowers quick loan forgiveness in exchange for upfront payments.

According to the FTC, the companies collected more than $16.7 million from consumers who were told their loans would be forgiven or significantly reduced. Instead, the scammers kept the money and never delivered on their promises.

“It’s illegal for anyone to charge fees before they help you or to pretend they’re affiliated with the Department of Education,” the FTC said in the consumer alert.

The Education Department does not work with private companies that demand payment in advance, and borrowers should be cautious of anyone claiming otherwise.

The now-banned companies, including those doing business under names like Prosperity Benefit Services and Pacific Quest Services, were first sued in 2024. At the time, the FTC alleged the operators sent deceptive mailers marked “FINAL NOTICE” and “Time Sensitive,” and made false promises of full loan forgiveness.

Borrowers were also misled into sharing personal financial details, including their Federal Student Aid ID, which scammers could use to access accounts or steal identities.

The case was one of the FTC’s first under a new federal rule that strengthens its ability to penalize those impersonating government agencies. Several judgments in the case ordered the defendants to surrender assets and banned them from telemarketing and making misrepresentations about financial services.

The FTC emphasized that no private company can do anything for borrowers that they can’t do themselves for free at StudentAid.gov. This includes applying for income-driven repayment plans, consolidating loans, or exploring forgiveness options—none of which require payment to third-party services.

Federal law also prohibits companies from pretending to be affiliated with the Department of Education. But scammers frequently misuse official-sounding names and seals to appear legitimate.

Borrowers struggling to repay federal loans can explore free options, including deferment, forbearance, and income-driven repayment plans. In some cases, they may also qualify for forgiveness based on long-term payment history or employment in public service.

The agency is urging the public to report suspected scams at ReportFraud.ftc.gov, contact their state attorney general, and find out more at ftc.gov/StudentLoans.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 10:30

Will Beijing De-Dollarize Or Dump US Treasury Debt?

Authored by Milton Ezrati via The Epoch Times,

Anticipating what tactics Beijing might use against U.S. President Donald Trump amid trade negotiations, several media outlets here, in Europe, and elsewhere have begun to speculate that China will threaten to distance its economy and its trade from the dollar—de-dollarize in the popular parlance—and perhaps sell off its extensive holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

Neither act, however, is at all likely, certainly not as an immediate bargaining chip.

It is easy to see why commentators would seize on notions like de-dollarization. Beijing for years has sought to raise the yuan’s international profile, often at the expense of the U.S. dollar. In its wide-ranging Belt and Road Initiative, for instance, it often insists that arrangements and contracts are denominated in yuan and not dollars, as is customary elsewhere.

Beijing has promoted the idea of moving away from the dollar among the so-called BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank denominates loans and grants in yuan, not dollars. Beijing has contracted for large oil purchases in yuan, not dollars. Its extensive dealings with Russia dispense with the use of dollars. And the People’s Bank of China has aided the effort by promoting a digital yuan.

But Beijing is also well aware that China, as an export-dependent economy, must hold dollars to back its trading activities with most nations.

For all Beijing’s efforts to supplant the dollar with the yuan, the dollar nonetheless acts as a basis for 80 percent of the world’s import-export activity, even when Americans are not involved. The dollar has a presence in 90 percent of all currency transactions, compared with only 4 percent for the yuan.

China could shed the dollar and still have access to global trading and currency arrangements, but it would have to accept much less effective and efficient arrangements to do so.

In other words, de-dollarization would hurt China much more than it would hurt the United States, and both Beijing and Washington know this.

Nor is China likely to threaten the sale of its holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

There is no denying that China’s holdings are huge. Some estimates put the figure at just under $1 trillion, second only to Japan’s holdings of about $1.13 trillion. This would seem to give Beijing leverage, but all involved know that the sale of these holdings would deny China a liquid market in which to invest its necessary holdings of U.S. dollars.

Moreover, an extensive sale would depress the price of U.S. Treasury bonds, imposing losses on Beijing’s balance sheet at a time when China’s domestic economic troubles make such a loss especially hard to bear. To be sure, such a sell-off would hurt Washington, but it would hurt Beijing even more, and both sides know it.

Beijing also knows that China’s interests would suffer from the tendency for any of these steps to weaken the dollar’s foreign exchange value and strengthen the yuan. In these circumstances, China’s central authorities would do better to weaken the yuan’s foreign exchange value, especially against the dollar. Such an action would make Chinese goods cheaper to dollar-based buyers and accordingly offset some of the adverse pricing impact of existing and threatened U.S. tariffs.

Instead, the yuan has recently gained value against the dollar. Beijing could reverse this trend if it were to talk down the currency actively by publicly eschewing de-dollarization and any talk of selling off holdings of U.S. Treasury debt.

It hardly warrants saying that matters today remain highly uncertain.

Trump’s next move is impossible to guess, as is Beijing’s.

For all the uncertainty, however, it is still possible to set aside all the talk of de-dollarization and asset sell-offs, for the very practical reasons outlined here and also because Beijing, in these ongoing negotiations, has zero interest in antagonizing Washington.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 09:20

Bank Connected To Left Wing Billionaire Giving Loans To Illegal Immigrants To Fight "Systemic Racism"

A bank connected to leftwing billionaire Tom Steyer is giving loans to illegal immigrants using a financial loophole—claiming it’s a way to fight “systemic racism", according to the Daily Wire.

Beneficial State Bank, based in Oakland, California, offers loans to immigrants without legal status by using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs) instead of Social Security numbers.

The bank says this is part of its mission to promote fairness. “Beneficial State Bank is committed to addressing financial inequalities that disproportionately affect communities of color, a result of centuries of systemic racism,” the bank said in its 2022 impact report.

“A key initiative is lending to immigrant customers who may not have Social Security numbers but possess Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers.” In 2022, it issued $25 million in auto loans to 707 ITIN borrowers

The Daily Wire writes that in 2023, the bank continued to push this strategy. “Because many financial institutions require social security numbers, people without them, such as recent immigrants to the United States, can face barriers to qualifying for the loan they need to purchase a car,” the report reads.

“The bank lends to customers with Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, providing critical access to credit and expanding financial inclusion.” About 10% of its 16,000 auto loans are made this way.

The bank started by offering loans to undocumented immigrants through furniture stores, according to the Global Alliance for Banking on Values. It also lends to people with California AB 60 driver’s licenses, which are available to those who “are unable to provide proof of legal residence in the United States.”

Beneficial State Bank did not respond to questions about this. But it’s not the only bank making ITIN loans. Prysma Lending has issued over a billion dollars in these loans and hosted talks to help immigrants avoid deportation by using a “credible fear” interview.

This ITIN loan tactic also supports developments like Colony Ridge in Texas, which has been linked to illegal immigrants, including criminals.

Leaked emails from a Texas land developer show there’s a whole lending industry targeting illegal immigrants. One developer admitted, “we will not be able to sell our developments if each of our buyers have to have [social security numbers].”

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 08:45

Why Fishermen Are Catching Fewer Lobsters In Maine

Authored by Allan Stein via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

STONINGTON, Maine—For veteran lobsterman Travis Dammier, it was the end of another trip at sea on a solo voyage to earn a living.

He was approaching home, feeling less than excited as he navigated his fishing boat, My Kassandra, through the calm waters back to the commercial port of Stonington, Maine.

Lobster fisherman Travis Dammier, 41, unloads his catch in Stonington, Maine, on May 12, 2025. As an experienced independent lobsterman, Dammier said it’s getting harder to make a living as lobster hauls shrink, costs rise, and government regulations tighten. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

With little fanfare, the 36-foot vessel powered effortlessly toward the Greenhead Lobster Co. dock, stopping on its starboard side.

Dammier moved quickly as he secured the vessel with thick ropes.

Two dockworkers greeted him, and together they began transferring the live lobsters into large plastic containers for sale in the local market.

Dammier was pleased to return safely with his moving cargo, ready to sell in bulk, even though this landing was light at 140 pounds.

After factoring in expenses for fuel and bait, he estimated his profit at around $100 for three hours of hard labor.

He knew he needed to check more traps and make additional trips to ensure his time and effort would be worthwhile.

Dammier fondly recalled the glorious days of lobster fishing closer to shore, when daily catches could exceed 1,000 pounds and yield substantial profits.

Those years of abundance seemed they’d never end, but they eventually did.

Now, Dammier is compelled by circumstance to venture further out to sea and spend extended periods away from Stonington, about halfway up the Maine coastline.

“This time of year is brutal,” Dammier said. May is typically considered a lean month for the lobster harvest season.

New Challenges

Making a living from lobster fishing has become increasingly difficult for experienced independent lobstermen such as Dammier.

The rising costs of doing business, along with uncertain profits and declining landing volumes since the exceptional peaks of the 1990s and 2000s, all contribute to the challenges faced in this industry.

Dammier’s profound love for lobster fishing is the only constant, a passion inherited from his grandfather.

At 41, he is tall and easygoing. He wears a baseball cap and a gray hooded sweatshirt with rolled sleeves, layered underneath bright orange and yellow waterproof coveralls.

His trimmed beard gives him the appearance of a seasoned sailor; his expression is steady as he gazes out over the tranquil water.

Working alone on a lobster boat presents its unique challenges, Dammier told The Epoch Times.

Lobsterman Travis Dammier, 41, gazes out at the harbor in Stonington, Maine, on May 12, 2025. Even if he could afford to hire a deckhand, Dammier said finding qualified workers is difficult. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

“I’ve been fishing on my own for eight years now. I’m hauling my regular hauls by myself,” he said.

He still has a scar on his right forearm from an injury he sustained when he fell overboard.

The boat ran over him, slicing his arm. He managed to pull himself back on board and survived to fish another day.

Even if he had the funds to hire an additional deckhand in these belt-tightening times, Dammier said it is difficult to find qualified workers.

“I think it’s because it is hard work,“ he said. ”These new generations just don’t have the ethic.”

He said many experienced lobstermen are leaving the business due to rising operating costs and state regulations.

He added that some of Stonington’s independent operators were “bigger dogs” in their day, but time, as well as physical wear and tear, also took a toll on them.

“I know a lot of guys who sold out over the past couple of years with all these regulations—all the doom and gloom” surrounding the future of the lobster fishing industry, Dammier said.

During the peak years of lobster fishing in Stonington, when daily catches averaged 500 to 600 pounds or more, Dammier fished closer to shore, which made his job less expensive.

“I used to fish right up in there, inside that island—right there,” he said, pointing.

It has been four years since he placed a lobster trap in those narrow shoals and put down bait north of Fog Island, northeast of Bar Harbor, about 60 miles from Stonington.

Dammier said the lobsters are no longer as abundant in these locations as they once were. He now has to travel farther and for longer, increasing costs, trips, and the risk of injury.

The lobster boat My Kassandra leaves the port harbor of Stonington, Maine, on May 12, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

“You have to go into deeper water—go out further or first,” he said.

Along Maine’s rugged 228-mile coastline, filled with forested islands and stony inlets, lobster catches have declined for the third consecutive year, dropping from 111 million pounds in 2021, to about 87 million pounds in 2024.

Maine produces between 80 and 90 percent of the nation’s lobster supply, and Stonington is recognized as one of the leading lobster ports in the country.

With a population of 1,056, Stonington became a separate town in 1897, having previously been part of Deer Isle. It has continued to be a crucial hub of the lobster fishing industry and a tourist destination.

In 2021, the town produced 13.6 million pounds of lobster, valued at $74 million. By 2024, the amount had decreased to 11.9 million pounds, valued at $54.25 million, while lobster landings across the state totaled 86.2 million pounds, worth $528.4 million.

In 2024, the Division of Marine Resources issued 7,463 licenses for commercial and non-commercial lobster fishing in Maine’s seven coastal management zones. In addition, there were 2.5 million lobster traps in use.

What Has Changed?

Over the past century, yearly lobster catches in the state have varied greatly, falling to an all-time low of 5.3 million pounds in 1934.

Maine’s annual lobster catch hit a record high in 2016, totaling 132.6 million pounds, with a market value of $540.6 million.

Patrice McCarron, president of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, said that a common misconception is that lobsters are moving to the colder northern waters of Canada, which contributes to the depletion of Maine’s lobster stock.

“I would say the lobsters aren’t moving anywhere. It’s more that the center of abundance where they’re most available has shifted to deeper waters,” she told The Epoch Times.

A stack of lobster traps in Stonington, Maine, on May 12, 2025. In 2024, 2.5 million traps were in use across Maine’s seven coastal zones. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

The Gulf of Maine Research Institute, observed that ocean warming from 1984 to 2014 has caused the optimal summer temperatures for lobsters to shift northeastward.

As a result, the lobster population in southern New England fell by 78 percent, while the population in the Gulf of Maine increased by 515 percent.

The organization credited the substantial increase to successful conservation efforts.

Adult lobsters thrive in water temperatures around 50 degrees. However, temperatures above 65 degrees can stress them, negatively affecting their eight-year breeding cycle.

While there has been some warming in the Gulf of Maine, McCarron said that its ecosystem differs from southern New England’s.

“We get a lot of the Arctic melt coming into the Gulf of Maine as well. Sometimes that water sinks to the ocean bottom,” she said.

“We’ve had years of warmth, but nothing that’s outside of what a lobster would stop tolerating.”

McCarron said that a decline in lobster landings typically follows each boom, yet fishing companies become accustomed to the profitable yields.

“I think the peak was much more than we had ever really expected the resource would provide us,“ she said. “There was an expectation in the industry that at some point, the landings were going to trail off.”

Dockworkers at the Greenhead Lobster Co. prepare plastic containers to unload live lobsters from an arriving vessel, in Stonington, Maine, on May 12, 2025. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times Soft Landings

Ron Trundy, the manager of the Stonington Lobster Co-Op, has also observed lobster catches decline from their peak highs and level out.

“Some years, it would be a little less, some more,” he said.

Trundy said that lobster fishing remains profitable, despite rising costs causing frustration among many in the industry.

He said that prices for fishing gear have increased markedly, sometimes doubling, but the fluctuating cost of lobsters does not reflect these increases.

“The investment is way higher now than even 10 years ago,” Trundy told The Epoch Times. “The expenses are very high now. The business is changing.”

Twenty years ago, the cost to build a lobster boat was around $150,000. Now, it costs between $500,000 and $600,000, Trundy said.

Before the pandemic, a wire lobster trap cost around $60. Now, lobster boat operators expect to pay as much as $150.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 08:10

Citigroup Reverses Course On Controversial Firearm Policies

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Citigroup reversed its policy requiring retail business clients to refrain from selling firearms to those who haven’t passed background checks, the bank announced in a June 3 statement.

Citigroup instituted the policy in March 2018. It also included restricting clients from selling high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, and selling guns to individuals under 21 years of age.

That policy has now changed. In the statement, Citibank said that following “recent Executive Orders and federal legislation that impact this area ... [it will] no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms.”

The bank said concerns were being raised about “fair access” to banking services, adding that the corporation is following regulatory developments, presidential executive orders, and federal legislation under the current Trump administration related to fair banking access.

“In light of those developments, we took an objective look at our policies and practices with the intent of striking the right balance between our commitment to fair and unbiased access to our products while continuing to manage all risks to the bank appropriately,” the bank added.

Furthermore, Citigroup said it will update the employee Code of Conduct and the Global Financial Access Policy, “to clearly state that we do not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation in the same way we are clear that we do not discriminate on the basis of other traits such as race and religion.”

The bank’s policy reversal follows President Donald Trump signing an executive order on Feb. 7 calling for a review of all policies, projects, rules, and government action under the Biden administration related to Second Amendment rights.

During the World Economic Forum annual summit in Davos on Jan. 22, Trump said entities aligned with conservative causes are being discriminated against by banks, and asked the sector to change its ways.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that included a place called Bank of America,” Trump said, addressing Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I don’t know if the regulators mandated that, because of Biden or what, but you and Jamie [Dimon, JPMorgan Chase CEO] and everybody, I hope you open your banks to conservatives because what you’re doing is wrong.”

Protecting Gun Rights

Activist group March For Our Lives criticized Citigroup’s policy reversal as a “shameful decision” in a June 3 statement.

“Seven years ago, after 17 of my peers and teachers were murdered, Citi found the courage to say ‘no more’—no more financing gun sales to teenagers. Today, they’re saying our lives matter less than their politics,” said executive director Jackie Corin.

Citigroup’s March 2018 policy came after a man killed 17 individuals at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida in February that year in one of the deadliest mass shooting incidents in American history.

Meanwhile, the Firearms Industry Trade Association welcomed Citigroup’s latest decision, the group said in a June 3 statement.

Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president at the association, said they were “guardedly optimistic” about the bank’s announcement.

“We will see if this is a substantive change in policy or just a superficial change while Citigroup continues to discriminate in private beyond closed doors where it is harder for the public to detect.”

John Commerford, executive director at the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action, hailed the Citigroup policy change in a June 4 Instagram post.

The NRA “welcomes the news that Citigroup has rescinded its discriminatory debanking policies targeting gun manufacturers and dealers. Citigroup and other banks were pressured by left-wing activists to implement these measures in an attempt to restrict the lawful sale of firearms,” he said.

Commerford called on the Senate to pass the Fair Access to Banking Act, a law aimed at preventing financial institutions from “denying banking services to constitutionally protected services.” The bill was introduced in the House and Senate in February and is under consideration by lawmakers.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 07:35

UK Makes Solar Panels Mandatory On Most New Homes

Authored by Carl Deconinck via Brussels Signal,

The “vast majority” of new homes in England will soon be fitted with solar panels as standard, UK energy secretary Ed Miliband has confirmed.

Developers warned of added costs and bureaucratic hurdles.

The announcement, part of the forthcoming Future Homes Standard set for release this autumn, aimed to slash household energy bills and nudge the UK closer to its net-zero ambitions.

Miliband, speaking to the BBC on June 6, called the plan “just common sense,” claiming solar panels could save homeowners around £530 (€629) annually, based on current energy price caps

The British Government’s proposal mandated solar panels on almost all new builds, with “rare exceptions” for homes shaded by trees or otherwise impractical for solar generation.

Unlike the previous Conservative Party government plan, which required panels to cover 40 per cent of a building’s ground area or none at all, the ruling Labour Party’s approach insisted on at least some solar coverage, even if the 40 per cent target was not met.

Miliband insisted this flexibility would ensure near-universal adoption without letting developers off the hook.

We’re kickstarting a solar rooftop revolution.

All new-build houses will come with solar panels as standard.

Delivering lower bills, energy security, and tackling the climate crisis.https://t.co/wXHwZolpiO

— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) June 6, 2025

According to the Home Builders Federation, which indicated support for solar integration, “burdensome” paperwork could slow down the government’s ambitious target of 1.5 million new homes by 2029.

Neil Jefferson, head of the Home Builders Federation, told the BBC that an estimated two in five new homes had solar panels and that the industry was “getting increasingly used to incorporating solar panels within the building of new homes”.

“The government just needs to take care to make sure that it does not prescribe and mandate to much on rooftops.

“If every single home needs to be applied for on an exemption basis that will slow up the delivery of desperately-needed new homes, that administration will be burdensome,” he said.

Solar Energy UK’s CEO Chris Hewett said there was a need for more trained installers to meet demand, a point echoed by industry voices calling for investment in skills to sustain this “rooftop revolution”.

Meanwhile, the government’s own figures suggested solar power, while growing from 42 per cent since 2024 and 160 per cent over the past decade, remained a minor player, trailing gas, wind and nuclear in the UK’s energy mix.

Developers estimated solar installations could add £3,000 (€3,560) to £4,000 (€4,750) to construction costs per building.

Miliband dismissed concerns that these would be passed onto buyers, claiming house prices would not rise.

The policy dovetailed with Labour’s broader green agenda, including relaxed planning rules for heat pumps and a £13.2 billion (€15.68 billion) insulation scheme.

The Climate Change Committee insisted near-total decarbonisation of housing was essential for the 2050 net-zero target, a goal Labour inherited from the Conservatives who appeared to have turned against it.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said it was “impossible” without tanking living standards, while Reform UK wanted it scrapped entirely, citing higher energy bills.

Supporters, including Liberal Democrat MP Max Wilkinson, hailed the move as a win for both wallets and the planet.

Industry figures including Octopus Energy’s Nigel Banks claimed smart tech and storage could slash energy costs by up to 90 per cent for some households.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 07:00

These Are The U.S. States With The Most Drug Use

Drug abuse has long been a serious issue in the United States, with the so-called “War on Drugs” dating back to 1971 under President Nixon.

Despite decades of efforts to fight addiction, the problem remains widespread and deadly. More than 80,670 Americans died from drug overdoses in the 12 months ending November 2024. As new threats like fentanyl spread—enough was seized last year for 380 million lethal doses—it’s more urgent than ever for policymakers to act.

But where is the crisis worst? A new report from WalletHub ranks all 50 states and the District of Columbia across key metrics like drug use, overdoses, and access to treatment.

Chip Lupo, an analyst at WalletHub, explains: “Drug problems can start from multiple sources, like taking illegal substances with friends or getting hooked on a prescription that was originally given for a legitimate medical issue. As states fight drug addiction, they need to consider all angles and make sure they are not just addressing things from a law enforcement perspective but also providing the resources necessary to help people with addictions get clean.”

WalletHub’s analysts compared states using 20 metrics organized into three main categories: drug use and addiction, law enforcement, and drug health issues and rehab. These metrics included measures like the percentage of adults and teens who reported using illicit drugs, overdose death rates, opioid prescriptions, and availability of treatment facilities. 

New Mexico tops the list with the biggest drug problem in America. The state has the highest percentage of teens using drugs, the most teens reporting marijuana use before age 13, and the third-highest rate of adult illicit drug use. New Mexico also struggles with high overdose deaths and ranks near the bottom in offering help to those with addiction.

West Virginia ranks second, with the highest overdose death rate in the country and one of the top college campus drug arrest rates. A lack of addiction treatment resources means many residents have nowhere to turn for help.

Nevada comes in third. Nearly 30% of students there report being offered or sold drugs at school. Nevada also ranks high for teens trying marijuana early and has too few treatment facilities to meet the need.

Other high-ranking states include Alaska, the District of Columbia, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Colorado. Each faces unique challenges, from high rates of opioid prescriptions to limited treatment options.

The report also highlights troubling data on teen drug use. New Mexico, Arizona, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Alaska have the highest percentages of teenagers who admit using drugs in the past month. Meanwhile, states like Arkansas, Tennessee, and Texas report much lower teen drug use.

Students being offered drugs at school is a big concern, too. California, Nevada, Georgia, New Jersey, and Hawaii top the list for that category, while states like Connecticut and South Dakota report much lower numbers.

The crisis shows no sign of ending on its own. Experts recommend a mix of strategies to combat addiction, including making rehab more accessible and expanding education on the risks of drug use. The federal government and states alike must prioritize treatment alongside law enforcement to help communities recover.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/07/2025 - 22:45

Wood Pellets: America's Underrated Power Play

Authored by Darrell Smith, Executive Director of the U.S. Industrial Pellet Association via RealClearEnergy,

In an energy conversation dominated by buzzwords and breakthroughs, it’s easy to overlook the quiet, proven solutions that are already delivering results. Exhibit A: wood pellets.

These compact cylinders aren’t flashy or trend on social media. For the uninitiated, they are carriers of renewable carbon and energy, sourced from responsibly managed forests; a real, scalable, domestic resource that delivers energy security, climate value, and rural jobs while sustaining and growing forests. Wood pellets are emerging as one of the smartest plays in America’s energy and climate portfolio.

The Math Works

Let’s be clear: climate solutions need to scale. We need terawatts of clean power, gigatons of carbon removal, and a replacement for fossil carbon in sectors where options are limited. Think steel mills, cargo ships, aviation fuel, and cement plants — industries that can’t rely on solar panels and wind turbines.

Enter forest biomass. Every year, America’s 360 million acres of privately-owned forests grow more wood than we harvest. Driven by strong markets for wood products, these forests are powerful carbon sinks that have been growing since the 1950s when regenerative forestry practices became the norm.

Responsible forest management, the kind that thins out fuel for wildfires, not only keeps forests healthy but also supplies feedstock for wood pellets. These pellets burn clean, emit fewer particulates than coal, are carbon-neutral, and have the potential to be carbon-negative when sourced sustainably. In other words, we’re turning forest byproducts into a strategic asset instead of a forest fire risk and ensuring more investment into our nation’s forests.

Valued at $1.75 billion, the U.S. led the world last year in wood pellet exports — heating homes and decarbonizing power grids from Cambridge to Copenhagen. That’s not just a climate win. It’s a geopolitical and economic one. Furthermore, there are ample opportunities to increase use domestically.

 The Digital Surge: Data Centers Meet Biomass

Data centers are growing at breakneck pace. From streaming to AI, every click and query demands energy. These facilities already consume nearly 3% of global electricity, and that figure is climbing fast. In the U.S. alone, data center energy demand is expected to double by 2030.

While tech companies make pledges to run on “100% renewable,” achieving this goal is challenging. Intermittent renewables like wind and solar can’t always deliver the 24/7 baseload power data centers require. Wind and power are not the silver bullet many had hoped, because expensive batteries must be manufactured and installed to account for their lack of reliability. Meanwhile, wood pellets offer a firm, dispatchable, renewable fuel that can complement the grid and provide the consistent power backbone data infrastructure needs, without the carbon price tag of fossil fuels.

Speed is also a challenge. AI infrastructure is being developed on start-up timelines, but the grids meant to supply power are often hampered by multi-year planning cycles and limited capacity. Utilizing the existing biomass fleet or retrofitting coal-fired power stations to run on sustainable biomass bypasses these time-intensive and costly barriers. These sites are already grid-connected, often already have relevant permits, and crucially a coal-to-biomass conversion can be completed in under two years.

A Carbon-Negative Future? Biomass is the Feedstock

There’s another dimension to this story. Biomass isn’t just an energy source; it’s a carbon solution. Engineered carbon removal technologies like Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) require a steady, sustainable feedstock to function at scale. That feedstock needs to be renewable, reliable, and available today. Wood pellets fit that bill.

When wood pellets are used in BECCS systems, they generate power and remove CO₂ from the atmosphere at the same time, locking it away underground or turning it into usable materials like concrete, fuels, or even long-lived bioplastics. That’s negative emissions. Not net zero. Below zero.

With private markets pouring billions into carbon removal innovation, the need for biogenic carbon is accelerating. Whether it’s carbon-negative electricity, sustainable aviation fuel or green hydrogen, they all have one thing in common: they start with a reliable renewable carbon stream. Wood pellets and woody biomass are poised to play a major role in supporting these emerging technologies.

Missing the Forest for the Trees

Despite all this, woody biomass, like all energy, eventually finds itself in the crosshairs. Critics claim it’s just “burning trees,” a false narrative that ignores both the science and the forests. Sustainable biomass doesn’t chop down protected, old-growth forests. It’s sourced from working forests, the type that are deliberately selected and sustainably managed to produce our dimensional lumber and furniture. Except biomass utilizes the lowest-value fiber that comes off these tracts.

As America’s pulp and paper industry has declined, shuttering dozens of mills and shedding thousands of jobs over the last decade, wood pellets have offered a new market for low-value wood. This fiber has little economic value and without a buyer will often rot, burn, or get landfilled. Using this wood isn’t deforestation, it’s responsible forest stewardship. In fact, without reliable markets like biomass, private landowners will sell and convert their forests for more lucrative returns like agriculture, golf courses, and residential developments.

Investing in Rural America

The benefits of the wood pellet industry go beyond carbon math. This is a sector that brings real jobs to rural America. It supports forest owners, loggers, truckers, and working forests. This is climate action with a hard hat, not a hashtag.

If we’re going to win the climate war, we have to include the states in America’s wood basket where trees grow, people work the land, and decarbonization isn’t an abstract ideal.

Wood pellets are real, scalable, renewable and a true American resource.

In a world increasingly distracted by hype, maybe it’s time we doubled down on solutions that deliver quietly, reliably, and sustainably. One of the smartest is hiding in plain sight — in our forests.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/07/2025 - 22:10

Trump To Deploy National Guard In Los Angeles As Anti-ICE Demonstrations Turn Violent

The Trump administration will deploy the National Guard to Los Angeles following several violent confrontations between Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and protesters, after ICE agents carried out multiple immigration sweeps throughout the county.

Border czar Tom Homan revealed the plans Saturday night in an interview on Fox News. 

BREAKING - Border Czar Tom Homan has just confirmed that the National Guard will be deployed to Los Angeles tonight to reestablish order after Democrats seized control during violent anti-ICE riots. pic.twitter.com/fa2llnUPsP

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) June 7, 2025

Earlier, the Deartment of Homeland Security accused Democratic leaders in California - including Governor Gavin Newsom (D) and Mayor Karen Bass (D) of contributing to the violence.

"The violent targeting of law enforcement in Los Angeles by lawless rioters is despicable and Mayor Bass and Governor Newsom must call for it to end," DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. 

BREAKING: Protesters in Paramount, California have vandalized a U.S. Marshals Service bus during fiery demonstrations against immigration raids. pic.twitter.com/cK02O3CYIR

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) June 7, 2025

Border Patrol personnel deploy tear gas during a demonstration over the dozens detained in an operation by federal immigration authorities a day earlier in Paramount section of Los Angeles on June 7, 2025. Eric Thayer/AP Photo

BREAKING NEWS:

Paramount, California is ERUPTING into chaos as federal agents are fighting back against a crowd of anti-deportation agitators!

Flash bangs and tear gas is deployed against them.

What is your reaction? pic.twitter.com/FTOnbL2b3g

— AmericanPapaBear (@AmericaPapaBear) June 7, 2025

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also chimed in, posting on X that protesters who use violence against officers will be prosecuted.

"You will not stop us or slow us down," she posted on X. 

President Trump also blamed 'Newscum' and Bass - saying in a Saturday night 'Truth' that if they can't do their jobs, "then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem."

White House spox Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump's comments, saying in a post on X: "President Trump will uphold law and order and continue to remove all dangerous illegal alien invaders from our country," adding "The mob violence will be quelled, the criminals responsible will be brought to justice, and operations to arrest illegal aliens will continue unabated."

Left-wing radicals waving foreign flags are viciously attacking ICE and Border Patrol agents and obstructing official law enforcement activities in Los Angeles.

Democrats refuse to condemn this despicable behavior but this will NOT be tolerated by the Trump Administration.… pic.twitter.com/JFzrVhOfjk

— Karoline Leavitt (@PressSec) June 8, 2025

The White House issued the following statement: 

In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester. The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is ready to send in the Marines...

The violent mob assaults on ICE and Federal Law Enforcement are designed to prevent the removal of Criminal Illegal Aliens from our soil; a dangerous invasion facilitated by criminal cartels (aka Foreign Terrorist Organizations) and a huge NATIONAL SECURITY RISK.

Under President…

— Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) June 8, 2025

Newsom responded - saying in a post on X: "The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions," adding "This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust."

The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers. That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.

LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close…

— Governor Gavin Newsom (@CAgovernor) June 8, 2025

Stay tuned...

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/07/2025 - 21:35

Republican Lawmakers Tee-Up Battle Over Transgender Sports In Oregon

Authored by Scottie Barnes via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Oregon House of Representatives rejected a bill on June 5 that would have required Oregon schools to designate school sports teams by biological sex.

Transgender athlete Liaa Rose finished in 5th place in the girls division of the OSAA Oregon High School Track Meet at University of Oregon's Hayward Field on May 31, 2025. Scottie Barnes/The Epoch Times

After Democrats blocked the bill, Oregon House Republicans sent an urgent letter to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, urging swift federal intervention and offering full cooperation with an ongoing Title IX investigation into Oregon’s education system.

House Bill 2037 would have allowed only females to participate in women’s school sports and enter women’s intimate spaces, such as bathrooms and locker rooms.

The bill failed along party lines despite hearing stories of more than a dozen young female athletes who were present for the vote, including high-jumpers Reese Eckard of Sherwood High School and Alexa Anderson of Tigard High School.

The action marks yet another flashpoint in the battle over transgender participation in athletics.

The legislative showdown followed a weekend in which male athletes identifying as transgender competed in the girls’ division at high school track meets in California, Washington, Maine, and Oregon, “displacing female competitors and confirming the systemic nature of the problem,” according to the Republican letter to Dhillon.

At the Oregon State Track and Field Championships at Hayward Field in Eugene on May 31, Eckard and Anderson, who had finished third and fourth in the high jump event, stepped down from the medal podium and turned their backs in protest of fifth-place finisher Liaa Rose.

Just two years earlier, Rose, who is a senior at Portland-based Ida B. Wells High School, finished in 11th place in the boys JV division.

“What happened last weekend at Hayward Field was heartbreaking,” wrote Oregon Republican Rep. Darin Harbick in a statement sent to The Epoch Times.

“A male athlete took a lane from a girl who trained all year for that moment. This isn’t just unfair—it’s wrong, and it’s exactly why we need federal oversight.”

By rejecting HB 2037, Republican Rep. Ed Diehl said, the Democrat majority chose ideology over fairness, common sense, and compliance with federal law.

“This bill was straightforward: protect female athletes and ensure a level playing field in school sports. Instead, the majority prioritized political agendas over equal opportunity for Oregon’s young athletes.”

Democrat Rep. Rob Nosse said during June 5’s legislative session that transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in youth sports and warned that such legislation could alienate trans athletes who would be denied the opportunity to use bathrooms that align with their gender identities.

“Mostly what I heard this morning was … just mean,” Nosse said.

Rep. Jules Walters, a Democrat, echoed her colleague, pointing out that many transgender people are on staff at the Capitol.

“When politicians speak callously on matters relating to identity, they’re speaking to their colleagues, their colleagues’ staff and their colleagues’ families,” Walters said.

“This chamber is not a vacuum.”

DOJ Zooming in on Oregon

The DOJ was already focused on Oregon.

Dhillon announced in a May 23 letter that the DOJ would launch a federal investigation into allegations of sex-based discrimination by the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) and the Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA), the governing body for Oregon high school sports.

“When males are allowed to compete with girls in female-only sport or events, the protections afforded to female athletes by Title IX are lost, and, quite simply, the law is broken,” Dhillon wrote in her letter to counsel at America First Policy Institute (AFPI).

The institute is a public policy organization headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, that has filed a Title IX discrimination complaint against OSAA and ODE.

Included with the Republican correspondence to Dhillon was an April 2024 letter from OSAA Executive Director Peter Weber acknowledging that the association’s “gender identity” policies were developed with ODE.

“ODE is set to receive about $1.5 billion in federal funds this biennium,” wrote Republican Rep. Boomer Wright in a statement shared with The Epoch Times.

“Those dollars must not support policies that violate civil rights law.”

The letter urged the DOJ to “carefully review how those funds intersect with policies that may be in violation of federal civil rights law.”

Also enclosed was a Feb. 11, 2025, letter from Oregon House Republicans to Weber requesting that OSAA immediately align its athletic policies with President Donald Trump’s executive order “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports”—a request that remains unanswered.

The executive order suggests that educational institutions that permit transgender athletes to compete in female sports could lose funding.

Although the DOJ letter does not draw any conclusions about the Oregon cases, it signals the beginning of a formal review that could have broader implications for school districts and athletic associations across the country.

If violations are found, the department could mandate changes to policy and enforcement or pursue legal action to ensure compliance.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/07/2025 - 21:00