Zero Rss

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire

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

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

1. Increasing control of scarce spectrum assets,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those rivals include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama-Appointed Judge Dismisses Federal Government's Lawsuit Challenging Los Angeles Sanctuary City Policy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A California judge has dismissed the federal government's legal challenge to Los Angeles's sanctuary city ordinance that restricts the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.

People in the audience hold up signs as the Los Angeles City Council considers a "sanctuary city" ordinance during a meeting at City Hall in Los Angeles on Nov. 19, 2024. Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin of the Central District of California said the federal government failed to support its claim that the city's ordinance violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. But the judge stated that the government could file an amended complaint.

"The Ordinance does not directly regulate the federal government. Rather, it 'controls the actions of [the City's] own agents and agencies," the judge stated in a five-page order dated June 20.

Olguin rejected the government's argument that the ordinance was preempted by federal law because it "restricts the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of citizenship or immigration status" by prohibiting city personnel from collecting such information.

The judge said the ordinance's provision "merely restricts a City employee from inquiring into or collecting information about a person's citizenship or immigration status, and says nothing about the City's ability to maintain or share such information."

In a statement on June 22, Los Angeles city attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto praised the judge's order, saying it "reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the lawsuit in June 2025, alleging that Los Angeles's sanctuary city laws are unlawful because they "interfere with and discriminate against" the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts.

The department alleged that the city's ordinance impeded federal immigration authorities from detaining illegal immigrants who are subject to removal and have been convicted of crimes.

The Trump administration said the city's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement had led to "lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe," which prompted the deployment of the California National Guard and the U.S. Marines to restore order in the city.

The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The Trump administration also brought similar legal challenges against several other cities and states with sanctuary policies, including New York City, Minnesota, and Illinois.

In April 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to pursue legal remedies for jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal law.

"This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government's obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States," the president said. "It is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:40

Cyberattack Hits Iran's Banking System, Disrupting Card Networks At Three Major Lenders

It seems that the United States and Israel have not completely given up on covert efforts toward regime change in Iran, or at least on sabotage efforts to weaken the government's hold over the population.

The precursor to Trump's Operation Epic Fury was of course the January economic protests, which saw serious clashes with police and security forces, and left thousands dead. Trump subsequently claimed over 30,000 were killed - a very high, dubious number - according to many independent analysts.

At the same time US Treasury Secretary Bessent openly bragged about waging economic warfare to send the Rial plunging, which was a spark and catalyst for the destabilizing protests and unrest.

On Tuesday Al Jazeera reports on what could be renewed efforts to further weaken Iran from within. "Iran's state-owned banking technology provider says attacks disrupted services at Bank Melli, Bank Saderat and Bank Tejarat," the publication reports.

EPA, via Shutterstock

One theory among Washington hawks is that economic collapse can be engineered via external means (though Israel has also long bragged about having many assets on the ground inside the Islamic Republic).

Is the prior failed 'plan A' still on? ...even as direct bombing has failed to achieve regime change?

According to more from Al Jazeera, referencing the major bank-focused cyberattacks: 

This had prompted a temporary suspension of all card-related operations at the three banks to prevent further unauthorized access, the company told state TV, with cybersecurity teams working to restore normal operations.

The company’s public relations head said ATM services, point-of-sale terminals and mobile applications linked to card systems were all affected.

Major banks, including Melli, Saderat, Tejarat and the Export Development Bank of Iran, have faced disruptions first reported on June 14 after a cyberattack targeting a shared communication infrastructure, Iran’s banking coordination council has said.

As far can be assessed, there was no unrest or protests that resulted in this latest incident, and Iranian state media has in follow-up reported that the serious issues and lack of fund access for customers took several days to resolve.

"Iranian authorities have previously blamed hostile foreign actors, such as Israel, for similar incidents. Israel has previously not commented on such allegations," the Tuesday report also noted.

Iran is bracing for more such cyber-provocations, given it is still technically at war with the US and Israel, and despite the signing of the peace MoU with the US, based on extending the ceasefire for at least 60-days, giving time for the nuclear issue to be dealt with.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:20

Randi Whinegarten

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, wrote a hyperbolic piece titled "America's Teachers Can't Afford to Teach," which appeared in Time magazine on June 11.

The excessively whiny article is filled with half-truths meant to make readers feel sorry for impoverished, underpaid teachers. Among other things, she asserts that the vast majority of American educators are living paycheck to paycheck, taking on debt to buy groceries, and facing other financial hardships.

She maintains that the pay gap between "teachers and other college-educated professionals - known as the 'teacher pay penalty' - has grown to 27 percent. To put it plainly, people with the same level of education and experience can make far more doing almost anything other than teaching. We cannot accept this as an unfortunate reality or an accident."

But when you look at the facts, which apparently is an alien concept to the union boss, you get a very different picture. While it is true that teacher salaries nationwide have not quite kept up with inflation, Weingarten tells only part of the story, omitting many perks afforded to educators.

Just Facts, a nonprofit dedicated to researching and publishing verifiable facts on critical public policy issues of our time, analyzes teacher salaries and reports that in the 2021-22 school year, the average U.S. teacher earned $66,397 in salary and $34,090 in benefits, including health insurance, paid leave, and pensions, for a total compensation of $100,487.

Also, full-time public school teachers work an average of 1,490 hours per year, including time spent on lesson preparation, test construction, grading, providing extra help to students, coaching, and other activities, while their counterparts in private industry work an average of 2,045 hours per year, about 37 percent more than public school teachers.

Weingarten also fallaciously claims that teachers in states with union-backed collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) earn 24 percent more than those in states without such agreements.

However, those without an agenda tell a very different story, arguing that CBAs actually hurt the bottom line for all teachers. Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Institute writes that teachers in non-collective bargaining districts earn about 12 percent more than their unionized peers. Other research by Michael Lovenheim and Andrew Coulson produced similar findings. In 2018, University of California, San Diego professor Augustina Pagalayan reported that CBAs do not improve teacher pay.

It's worth noting that union dues for teachers are quite high these days. In Los Angeles, for example, full-time educators pay about $1,500 in dues annually.

Weingarten also never explains where the bulk of union dues are spent. According to a Pew Research poll, about 58 percent of public K - 12 teachers lean Democratic and 35 percent lean Republican. But OpenSecrets reports that in 2024, the American Federation of Teachers gave $3,069,063 (99.89 percent) to Democrats and a scant $3,323 (0.11 percent) to Republicans.

Additionally, while she bemoans low teacher pay, the money she collects from them goes to pay her a hefty salary. As the Illinois Policy Institute reveals, Weingarten's current yearly income is $514,488, making her a one-percenter.

Another fraud perpetrated by Weingarten concerns a book she wrote last year, Why Fascists Fear Teachers: Public Education and the Future of Democracy, which she claims will "empower us and give us hope." The problem is that every word from the union boss is nonfactual claptrap.

As Aaron Withe, Freedom Foundation CEO, writes, the book opens by comparing the Nazi occupation of Norway to the current state of American education and "argues that anyone who disagrees with the author's vision for public schools is, in some meaningful sense, a fascist."

Perhaps the biggest deception in Weingarten's book is its portrayal of her role during the pandemic. "I led the AFT in developing a concrete plan to reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible," she claims.

Bald-faced lie.

In reality, she repeatedly argued for keeping schools shuttered throughout the spring and summer of 2020, while her union aggressively lobbied the CDC to revise its school-reopening guidance. Two of her language recommendations were adopted verbatim.

Weingarten also outrageously used members' dues to pay for her fiction-laden book.

Researcher Maxford Nelsen combed through the AFT's most recent LM-2 - the annual financial disclosure unions file with the U.S. Department of Labor - and unearthed a detailed accounting of how member dues were used to produce Weingarten's book.

The AFT paid nearly $1 million to a New York law firm, and its attorney is likewise thanked in the book's acknowledgments for reviewing the manuscript. When the New York Post asked about it, an AFT spokesperson claimed the review was done pro bono, but the union LM-2 says otherwise.

There was also $6,000 for fact-checking, $5,212 for a single-author photograph by a Washington-based photographer, and $64,090 to a literary agency that lists AFT, not Weingarten, as its client.

Nearly 30 AFT staff members are thanked in the acknowledgments, prompting questions about their role in the book's creation. Meanwhile, travel costs for Weingarten's nationwide promotional tour are not itemized separately but were almost certainly substantial.

In other words, teachers paid for nearly everything. Weingarten may not have contributed a single dollar to the enterprise.

Weingarten was also one of the more strident leaders in 2025's anti-Trump "No Kings" movement. She wrote, "At every turn, this president has undermined the rule of law, weaponized the federal government against the people it should serve, and divide and silence us. And now, the same far-right groups that cheered his chaos are smearing those of us who are organizing peacefully for justice."

The hypocrisy here is glaring. This is a woman who has served as AFT president since 2008 and, before that, led the UFT, AFT's New York City branch, for 11 years. Additionally, teachers do not vote for her directly; only delegates do.

At the end of the day, Randi Weingarten is a dishonest, left-wing, hypocritical bloviator who always points the finger at others for various problems.

Other than offending the dishonorable queen, teachers have nothing to lose by saying goodbye to their union and can save a lot of cash in the process.

* * *

Larry Sand is a retired classroom teacher with 28 years of experience and served as president of the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network from 2006 to 2025. He currently works to raise awareness of the shortcomings of our education system.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:00

UN Maritime Agency Initiates Plan To Clear Hormuz Traffic: Hundreds Of Vessels, 11K Sailors

The Strait of Hormuz is supposed to be 'open' now, based on the MoU framework, though things are expected to be extremely slow moving, despite signs of life in terms of an increased transit flow becoming evident only this week.

The saga of just how hundreds of ships will traverse is developing and tenuous: "The UN's International Maritime Organization says it will begin evacuating more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the Gulf due to the Middle East war," per AFP.

via Bloomberg

"This large-scale operation will be carried out in close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal States in the region, the United States and the maritime industry," IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez stated Tuesday.

"We have secured the necessary safety guarantees and have thoroughly verified the conditions for safe navigation to support these operations," he adds.

Presumably this simply means UN assistance in seeing the stranded crew make safe passage with their cargo and on their ships. Reuters explains:

The evacuation process under ​the IMO plan, which has been under discussion for months, will be phased, ‌Oman's ⁠defence ministry said separately in an advisory.

"Given the elevated risk of collision in the current environment, a gradual and controlled evacuation of vessel traffic is required," it said.

The Omani ministry said ​the so-called Traffic ​Separation Scheme was "not ⁠safe for use at this time" and two temporary routes to north and south of the ​scheme could be used for evacuation.

"Vessels will be ​contacted individually ⁠and advised of their allocated transit day by the parties coordinated by IMO," the ministry advisory said.

According to a backgrounder in the NY Times:

Today, the stress on the roughly 11,000 stranded sailors in the Persian Gulf may be even greater. Seafarers now have internet access and are often watching livestreams of attacks happening around them, while also seeing explosions from their ship decks.

“The fact that they are sitting on board the ships with real-time information — it is psychologically very traumatic,” said Mr. Khanna, 55.

Three commercial vessels have been hit by U.S. forces this week. One of the strikes killed three people, bringing the number of seafarers killed since the start of the war to 14. All told, there have been 46 attacks on international ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz since Feb. 28, most by Iran and some by the United States.

Scant details have been issued by the International Maritime Organization. There's a backlog of some 500 or 600 vessels, but some are making it through this week.

Notably, lead crew members or captains have all along not abandoned their tens of millions or hundreds of millions in precious commodities/cargo - especially after already enduring the blockade for this long.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 16:40

The Decline Of Mainstream Media: From COVID To Capital Markets

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Many of my subscribers first found me before the COVID narrative became mainstream, when I was ringing the alarm bells about the stock market in late 2019 and early 2020 and warning people that the virus was going to be a much bigger deal than people thought.

At the time, almost nobody cared about COVID. The consensus view was that it was a localized problem in China and that markets would continue marching higher as they always had. By January and February 2020, I was repeatedly warning that the market was dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus and that investors were ignoring what seemed to me like an obvious threat.

Looking back at my first major retrospective on COVID from 2021, what stands out isn’t that every prediction was correct. Many weren’t. What stands out is that I was willing to examine information that most investors, journalists, and policymakers either ignored or dismissed. Remember how hard it was to push back against the mainstream Covid narrative once it started? This is why I started asking critical questions about whether we were creating too much hysteria and reminding readers that Covid was over if they wanted it to be, all the way back in 2021.

Worse than the virus itself, I noted, was the continued incessant reminders and outright media propaganda to get vaccinated, two-faced mask requirements from hypocritical politicians, spurious and useless mandates and individuals and businesses who suffered personal or economic losses.

Months before COVID became the dominant story in America, I was warning that markets were dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus. I questioned China’s reported numbers. I argued that investors were assuming a best-case scenario despite mounting evidence that supply chains, travel, and economic activity could be severely disrupted. I openly criticized the World Health Organization’s handling of the crisis and questioned why obvious inconsistencies weren’t receiving more scrutiny.

I also raised questions that, at the time, were considered beyond the pale. When discussion emerged about a possible laboratory origin for the virus, now confirmed as the likely origin, I argued that simply asking questions should not be treated as misinformation. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from research activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory in early 2020. Today it seems to be the leading hypothesis.

The lesson I took away from that experience wasn’t that alternative explanations are automatically correct. It was that institutional consensus is often far less certain than it appears. That realization is largely why this blog exists.

Watching politicians impose restrictions that they themselves ignored, watching media organizations aggressively police discussion while frequently revising their own narratives, and watching legitimate questions become taboo convinced me that there was tremendous value in examining uncomfortable subjects that mainstream outlets either couldn’t or wouldn’t touch.

The purpose of my blog became clear: investigate the gray areas. I wrote as much in my “About” page:

Both myself and the people I read are not afraid to challenge the mainstream narrative or succumb to it when it serves the collective best interests of identifying objective truths on complex, important or fringe topics - the areas where the mainstream media and mainstream finance won’t shine lights.

I have spent years reading news that, in my opinion, often missed the point and buried the lede. Up until a couple years ago, I just thought it was because the mainstream media needed to be careful. Now, it has become clear that it is likely due to the mainstream media and financial media’s purpose to drive a narrative which serves the interests of a small minority, rather than the common citizen.

I write not because every fringe idea is true, but because some important truths begin their lives on the fringe. One of the clearest examples was ivermectin.

At the height of the pandemic, ivermectin became less of a scientific question and more of a political litmus test. A drug that had been prescribed billions of times to humans and had won its discoverers a Nobel Prize was suddenly reduced, in popular media coverage, to “horse dewormer.”

The issue to me wasn’t whether ivermectin was a miracle cure. The issue was that the public was being manipulated. Media organizations routinely blurred the distinction between veterinary formulations and human prescriptions. Public health agencies issued messaging that many interpreted as dismissing the drug outright. Anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative risked being labeled a crank, conspiracy theorist, or misinformation spreader.

I argued at the time that this wasn’t science. It was narrative management. The treatment of Joe Rogan became one of the most visible examples. Major media outlets repeatedly referred to ivermectin as horse medicine despite knowing that Rogan had been prescribed the human version by a physician. CNN’s own medical correspondent eventually acknowledged the characterization was inappropriate. I mean, look at this bullshit:

Years later, the FDA itself would acknowledge in court that physicians retain the authority to prescribe ivermectin for COVID treatment.

Whether one believes ivermectin was effective, ineffective, or somewhere in between misses the larger point. The public deserved an honest discussion. Instead, it received a coordinated campaign of ridicule, censorship, and oversimplification. That episode reinforced one of the core principles behind this blog: whenever institutions become more interested in controlling debate than encouraging it, it is worth paying attention.

Which brings us to the latest chapter in the Covid saga. The recent document release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard may ultimately prove to be one of the most consequential COVID disclosures yet.

The newly declassified materials reveal that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory assessed a laboratory origin as a serious possibility as early as May 2020. In 2022, I published an interview with Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University who claimed Covid was “much more easily explained” as a lab leak.

Contrary to the public perception that the lab-leak theory was merely a fringe internet speculation, one of America’s premier national laboratories concluded that a laboratory-modification scenario was plausible and deserving of equal consideration alongside a natural-origin explanation. The idea wasn’t nearly as batshit insane as the powers that be wanted us to think it was.

In fact, behind the scenes, many intelligent people thought it was the obvious explanation. How could you not? You could basically reach out and touch the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the Wuhan wet market.

The newly-released documents also shed additional light on the nature of U.S.-funded coronavirus research linked to EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and collaborating researchers. They describe research involving spike-protein modifications, receptor adaptation studies, experiments designed to evaluate human infectivity, and testing in humanized mice. These are precisely the types of activities that later became central to debates about whether SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from laboratory work.

Perhaps most strikingly, the release includes records indicating that Anthony Fauci participated in discussions involving intelligence officials, COVID origins assessments, and related research issues while later testimony and public statements created the impression that his involvement had been minimal or nonexistent.

Whether future investigations conclude that these inconsistencies amount to intentional deception or not, the documents unquestionably raise serious questions about how much the public was told, when they were told it, and whether key officials were fully transparent.

The released also showed:

• The assessment stated that conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus existed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019.

• Documents describe NIH-funded coronavirus research through EcoHealth Alliance involving spike-protein studies, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice with Wuhan collaborators.

• The release highlights links to the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, which contemplated engineering bat coronaviruses and studying ways to increase their ability to infect human cells.

• Internal emails show some scientists initially considered the possibility that certain features of SARS-CoV-2 could have resulted from engineering, though views evolved over time.

• Government and intelligence officials debated evidence related to the Wuhan lab, the virus’s furin cleavage site, and competing lab-origin versus natural-origin explanations.

• Documents include references to a 2016 Wuhan research paper describing techniques for large-scale viral genome reconstruction relevant to synthetic biology.

Equally important are the broader implications. The documents suggest that significant uncertainty existed behind closed doors while the public was presented with a far more confident narrative. They reveal that laboratory-origin scenarios were receiving serious internal consideration while public discussion of those same possibilities was often stigmatized. They demonstrate that intelligence officials, researchers, and policymakers were wrestling with questions that ordinary citizens were frequently discouraged from asking.

In other words, the fringe wasn’t inventing questions. The fringe was asking questions that powerful institutions were unwilling to answer. And that distinction matters. Because when legitimate inquiry is mislabeled as conspiracy, skepticism becomes important.

That’s the real reason this blog exists and I’ll never stop writing…because there’s tons to be skeptical about, not just in current events and Covid, but in the financial world as well: modern monetary theory, changing the inflation goalposts, solving inequality by printing money, the illusion that the stock market is indestructible, and the avoidance to talk about how things are crumbling before our eyes but we refuse to discuss it:  Read "We're In A Historic Bubble"

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

I don’t think every unconventional idea is correct, nor do I particularly enjoy being contrarian. But history repeatedly demonstrates that consensus can be wrong, institutions can be self-interested, experts can be captured, and politically inconvenient truths can remain hidden for years. And that’s why I write.

The goal is not to live on the fringe, it is to visit it often enough to make sure reality hasn’t moved there while everyone else was looking the other way. And in the investing world in particular, being early often carries with it a pecuniary reward. And while I’ve stopped actively trading, I get immense satisfaction by hopefully passing down such useful ideas and ruminations to my kind subscribers.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 16:20

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

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naveen Athrappully and Reuters contributed to this report.

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

Ras Laffan Explosion Threatens To Slow Qatar LNG Ramp, Goldman Says

A powerful explosion tore through Qatar's key natural gas plant late Sunday, killing at least 13 people and injuring 66 others. While the incident does not appear to have directly impaired LNG export capacity, it has certaintly raised the risk that Qatar may slow the restart of operations as a precaution.

The timing could not be worse. The blast at Qatar's giant Ras Laffan energy complex comes just a week or so after the US-Iran interim peace deal was signed and days after the Strait of Hormuz was reopened.

Latest maritime ship tracking data shows a notable uptick in transits of tankers and cargo vessels on the critical waterway.

Goldman Sachs energy expert Samantha Dart penned a note on Monday detailing how the explosion at Qatar’s Barzan gas plant in Ras Laffan does not appear to have directly affected the country’s LNG export capacity, but it has raised questions over whether Qatar Energy may slow the restart of export trains as a precaution, potentially tightening Europe’s winter gas balance.

Dart said the blast likely adds a one-month delay in the full ramp-up of Qatari LNG exports, relative to a base case of exports reaching 83% of capacity by the end of July, would reduce northwest Europe’s end-October storage level by about 4 percentage points to 70%, compared with a 74% base case.

Dart's four takeaways:

1. While yesterday's accident at Barzan, a Qatari natural gas supply facility that services domestic gas users, does not appear to have directly impacted the country's LNG export capacity, it has raised questions as to whether the pace of restart at Qatari LNG export trains might slow as a precautionary measure.

2. We estimate that a one-month delay in the full ramp of Qatari LNG exports (to 83% of capacity, net of the 13 mtpa under long-term damage) relative to our end-Jul26 base case would lower the NW Europe end-Oct26 gas storage fill by 4pp to 70% full (vs our 74% base case).

3. We believe such a scenario would lend only very limited (if any) incremental support to European gas prices vs our 41 EUR/MW 2H2026 forecast. This is because our implied end-Mar27 storage estimate, which would move to 28% (vs our 32% base case) under an average winter, would still be high enough to withstand a 1-2 standard-deviation colder-than-average winter

4. A scenario of a two-month delay for the ramp in Qatari LNG exports, however, to end-Sep26, would be more worrisome for winter gas availability. In this scenario, we would expect end-Mar27 storage fill 8pp lower vs our 32% base case, suggesting a risk of stock-out under a two-standard deviation colder-than-average winter. This increased risk of a NW Europe gas inventory stock-out would, in turn, likely support 4Q26 TTF closer to 50 EUR/MWh than to our 40 EUR/MWh forecast to reflect a higher probability that the market might need to rally towards 65 EUR/MWh ($22/mmBtu) to disincentivize Asia LNG demand

Any delay in Qatar’s LNG ramp-up would complicate the early stages of Hormuz normalization after being shuttered for several months due to the US-Iran conflict and would impact global gas markets, particularly the hardest-hit in Europe, where storage remains very sensitive to the pace of Qatari export recovery.

Professional subscribers can read much more on energy and the Hormuz chokepoint at our Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 14:45

US Senate Passes Housing Bill With Four-Year Fed CBDC Ban

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The U.S. Senate passed a sweeping housing affordability bill Monday night — and tucked inside its pages is a provision that could permanently reshape America’s digital currency landscape: a formal ban on a Federal Reserve-issued central bank digital currency through the end of 2030.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act cleared the Senate 85-5, with Republican leaders insisting the CBDC restriction ride along with one of the most bipartisan bills in years. The House was poised to fast-track a vote as early as Tuesday, putting the measure on a direct path to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.

The bill’s language is sweeping: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve bank may not issue, create, or circulate a central bank digital currency — directly or through any intermediary — through December 31, 2030. 

It explicitly shields private stablecoins, carving out any “open, permissionless, and private” dollar-denominated asset.

Trump set the political foundation for the ban in January 2025, signing an executive order barring his administration from any CBDC activity, warning it would threaten “the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States”.

New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, who replaced Jerome Powell, has called a U.S. CBDC a “bad policy choice” — making the Fed and the White House, for once, aligned.

The crypto market, meanwhile, isn’t celebrating. Bitcoin was trading near $62,000 Tuesday morning — down more than 3.7% on the day — as a Nasdaq tech selloff bled into digital assets. 

BTC has now lost roughly half its value since setting an all-time high above $125,000 in July 2025, and some analysts say the pain may not be over: at least one widely-followed technical indicator is pointing to a potential additional drop of 15% or more before a bottom forms.

Additional crypto Senate legislation in the works 

The CBDC ban is the latest piece in a three-part legislative puzzle the Trump-era Congress has been assembling.

In July 2025, Trump signed the GENIUS Act — the first federal stablecoin law in U.S. history — requiring issuers to hold one-to-one reserves, make monthly disclosures, and obtain federal licensing. The law essentially gave private digital dollars a legal green light at the same moment the government’s version was being blocked.

The third and most complex piece is still pending.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — the industry’s long-sought framework for determining when a crypto token is a security versus a commodity — cleared the Senate Banking Committee 15-9 on May 14 and landed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on June 1. 

Galaxy Research has put the odds of passage this year as high as 60%, but the clock is running out.

The bill needs at least seven Democratic votes to clear the Senate floor, and senators must act before August — when the legislative calendar effectively shuts down ahead of midterm campaigning. 

Senator Bill Hagerty told Fox Business on June 18 that he hoped the Clarity Act could clear the floor in the weeks ahead. Without it, a key question — who actually regulates crypto, the SEC or the CFTC — remains unanswered heading into an election cycle.

If Trump signs the housing bill this week, it will mark the most concrete federal action against a government digital dollar yet.

The message from Washington is becoming harder to misread: private crypto has a seat at the table, and the Fed’s version of a digital dollar does not. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 14:25

The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson's Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani..

At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not "consistent with the Second Amendment." Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.

Gorsuch wrote that the "historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways."

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the"'history and tradition' metric" and called for the Court to "revisit" the case.

Declaring Bruen "unworkable," Jackson called for the restoration of the "means-end scrutiny - the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen's 'history and tradition' metric - offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations."

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, "it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer 'contested historical questions,' and 'applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'"

Justice Jackson added that "Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen's test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws."

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to "resolve contemporary problems" under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded "solutions" for contemporary problems.

That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.

Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.

It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely.

Before voters "unburden" these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.

Here is the opinion: United States v. Hemani

onathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:45

Trump Privately Told Zelensky To Act 'More Boldly' Toward Russia: Ukrainian Media

While the globe's attention has been fixated on efforts to finally achieve US-Iran peace, based on negotiations in Switzerland, the Russia-Ukraine war has been quietly (or not so quietly) heating up, as evidenced in the increasingly brazen Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow and Crimea.

A slew of Ukrainian publications on Tuesday are reporting that this is in large part due to a White House greenlight to bring the war to Russian territory, in order to finally get significant concessions from Moscow, after over four years of grinding and a largely stalemated conflict.

"Ukraine now believes it has secured White House backing for a campaign aimed at forcing Russia into meaningful negotiations, the Kyiv Independent has learned," one such prominent English-language publication says.

The key claim is that President Trump privately told President Volodymyr Zelensky to act "more boldly," a senior Ukrainian official has claimed to several outlets.

"Trump says he doesn't really believe (Vladimir) Putin will do anything without pressure," the official, said to have been briefed on a recent Trump-Zelensky meeting, added.

"President (Trump) believes in peace through strength," one US official separately added.

According to Trump, who was recently asked about lukewarm efforts to get the warring sides back to the negotiating table...

"I don't mind," the American President said. "I mean, let them deal."

Ukraine's Zelensky had just days ago proclaimed: "I will not travel to Moscow to meet with Putin. We can meet in Turkey, Switzerland, or the Middle East."

Washington has clearly taken a step back after the prior big Putin-Trump summit in Alaska failed to produce any significant or lasting results in Ukraine, other than perhaps improving Moscow-Washington relations.

If it's true that Trump did indeed tell Zelensky to act 'more boldly' - this will music to the UK, France, Germany, and Baltic states' ears... they have wanted a clearer US greenlight to impose heavy costs on Russia.

But obviously the situation remains highly dangerous, given if they poke the nuclear-armed Russian bear too much, the war could finally escalate beyond just Ukraine and Russia's borders.

The problem is that this has all been tried before, and Russia only escalates in turn, seeking to clarify its red lines to the West. It's long been a proxy war, but things can always slide into dangerous open confrontation and conflict with NATO.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:25

Average 2Y Auction Stops Through, Has Highest Yield Since Jan 2025

In the week's first coupon auction, moments ago the Treasury sold $69BN in 2Y notes at a high yield of 4.189%, up from 4.071% and the highest yield since January 2025; the auction also stopped through the When Issued 4.192% by 0.3bps, the biggest through since January.

The bid to cover was perfectly average at 2.643, unchanged from last month's 2.640 and right on top of the recent average of 2.61.

Internals were a bit on the weak side, with Indirects awarded 55.45%, down from 57.60% and the lowest since Dec 25. And with Directs awarded 34.3%or the highest since Oct '25, Dealers were left with 10.24%, down from 12.3% and the lowest since Feb.

Overall, this was a medicore auction which priced on the strong side but whose internals offset that strength, printing a bit weak. Not like any of that mattered for the bond market, however, with yields trading near session lows across the curve.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:13

Kuwait Offers Gulf Oil Loadings In Ports Deep In Persian Gulf As Producers Seek Hormuz Outlet

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Kuwait is offering naphtha for loading at its ports deep into the Persian Gulf in the first such tender in months, as Middle Eastern oil producers seek to raise shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

State-held Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (KPC) has issued a tender to sell naphtha cargoes to be picked up at Kuwaiti ports by buyers, Bloomberg reported on Monday, quoting a tender document it had seen.

The Kuwaiti tender is a sign that the Gulf producers are hopeful that the Strait of Hormuz reopening would allow them to boost production and crude and product shipments.

In previous sales during the Hormuz crisis, Kuwait has asked potential buyers to charter their own tankers to pick up petroleum from the country’s ports, traders told Bloomberg.

But tanker traffic at the Strait of Hormuz has seen hiccups hours after the U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to reopen the critical oil and LNG chokepoint. Iran claimed on Saturday it closed the Strait again, due to the Israeli strikes in Lebanon, while the United States insists the waterway is open and millions of barrels of oil are flowing out of the Gulf.

Strait of Hormuz traffic through ~noon (UTC), today.
Vessels > 10,000 dwt.

Traceable traffic mostly through the Iranian lanes.
Outbound traffic includes three laden, sanctioned VLCCs.@LloydsList pic.twitter.com/wR45UVGgDr

— Tomer Raanan (@tldraanan) June 22, 2026

The situation remains volatile, but the Middle East Gulf producers, especially those relying solely on Hormuz such as Kuwait, appear to be preparing to increase output they had shut in in the early days of the war.

Last week, KPC’s deputy chairman and CEO Sheikh Nawaf Saud Al-Sabah said that Kuwait expects to raise its oil production to 2 million barrels per day (bpd) within a week, up from an average of 573,000 bpd in May, amid the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Prewar production levels could be restored within weeks once regular international commercial shipping to Kuwait ports has resumed,” Al-Sabah was quoted as saying by Kuwait News Agency.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:05

MP Materials' Lawsuit Against USA Rare Earth Highlights Battle For America's Future In Minerals

USA Rare Earth has dismissed a lawsuit filed by MP Materials, calling the claims "completely without merit" and arguing the case is an attempt to slow its growth. The company said it will deny all allegations that it improperly obtained confidential information from a former MP employee, according to Bloomberg.

The dispute underscores intensifying competition in the U.S. rare-earth sector, where both companies are racing to build domestic mining, processing, and magnet-production capabilities. USA Rare Earth said MP is trying to impede its progress as it develops the Round Top deposit in Texas and a magnet facility in Oklahoma.

Bloomberg writes that MP sued last month, alleging a coordinated effort by USA Rare Earth to recruit MP employees and misuse proprietary information. The lawsuit also questioned the viability of USA Rare Earth’s projects. MP declined to comment on the latest filing.

The clash comes as billions of dollars flow into the U.S. rare-earth industry amid efforts to reduce reliance on China, which continues to dominate global supply chains for the critical minerals.

Rare earth minerals have become increasingly important to the United States because they are essential components in advanced technologies, including electric vehicles, semiconductors, robotics, aerospace systems, and military equipment. Materials such as neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are critical for manufacturing high-performance magnets used in everything from fighter jets and missile guidance systems to wind turbines and data centers.

The strategic importance of rare earths has grown as the U.S. seeks to reduce its dependence on China, which currently dominates global rare earth mining, processing, and magnet production. Supply chain disruptions and export restrictions have heightened concerns among policymakers and industry leaders, prompting significant investments in domestic mining, processing, and manufacturing capabilities. Companies such as MP Materials and USA Rare Earth are at the forefront of efforts to establish a secure and resilient American rare earth supply chain.

Under the Trump administration, rare earth minerals have become a central component of broader efforts to strengthen U.S. energy security, industrial competitiveness, and national defense. Recent policy initiatives and government support have accelerated domestic rare earth development, reflecting a growing consensus that securing access to these critical minerals is essential for maintaining America's technological leadership and reducing strategic vulnerabilities.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 12:30

This Is Only Fifth Time QQQs Gapped Down When Within 2% Of An All Time High

In a day of sharp, downward pointing market moves and superlatives, we can add another: according to calculations from BTIG's Jonathan Krinsky, today's 2% gap down in the QQQs is a historic event. "Since QQQ's inception ('99), this is just the 5th time that's happened when the day prior was within 2% of a 52wk high and the VIX was below 20."

What happens next? While near-term returns are split, all four of the signals saw QQQ meaningfully lower over the next month. Hardly a shock judging by how extreme the upside moves in semis/AI have been.

Meanwhile, Krinsky continues to highlight the "screaming" divergences within the market, as the hyperscalers continue to trade poorly, and in S. Korea you had the KOSPI rally over 4% the last four days when each day had extremely negative breadth.

Whether or not we rally in the short-term, the BTIG strategist continues to see medium-term downside risk for the tech/AI trade with ~5% further to go for QQQ and 10-15% more for areas like SOXX.

The good news is so far correlations remain low and this appears to be rotational in nature, with areas like financials and biotech still looking good.

The Focus observations: 

• QQQ Study. QQQ gapped down over 2% this morning. Since QQQ's inception ('99), this is just the 5th time that's happened when the day prior was within 2% of a 52wk high and the VIX was below 20. The four priors were: 5/16/19, 1/27/20, 2/24/20 and 1/27/25. While near-term returns were split,all four of the signals saw QQQ meaningfully lower over the next month.

• How Much Downside? From current levels, BTIG sees ~5% more downside for QQQ and 10-15% for SOXX.
• What if We Rally? Given the 'buy the dip' mentality, a further rally from today's lows would not be surprising. QQQ already up more than 1% off session lows as of 10:30et. While BTIG doesn't foresee recent highs being exceeded in the near-term, both 2020 and 2025 did see new highs before ultimately rolling over (note that those highs also were aided by COVID-19 and the 'tariff tantrum').

• The Good News. As of 11:30et, S&P breadth was +84 with five sectors green. REITs, banks, and insurers continue look good, as does Biotech, although XBI is a bit extended very short-term. For now, it still appears to be a positioning unwind rather than the start of a high-correlation selloff, and that allows other areas to work while the tech/AI trade takes a much-needed breather.

• Dollar Up, Gold Down. With the DXY breaking out through 100, a move towards 104 looks likely which should pressure gold down below 4k.

More in the full BTIG report available here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 12:10

There’s A Shakespearean Tone To Current Developments

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Burnham would come to high Done-inane

There’s a Shakespearean tone to current developments: tragically, not one of his comedies.

The US has introduced a temporary waiver (until August 21) for Iranian oil sales that undoes 40 years of sanctions. Iran can sell what it likes to who it likes, including the US, and receive US dollars. Two months isn’t enough time to sell much, but if the White House wants to show Iran it’s serious about offering new opportunities that’s been achieved. Equally, Iran says an agreement has been reached to release $12bn in frozen funds, but disputes Trump's claim it will buy food exclusively from the US with it.

More importantly, VP Vance said Iran has agreed to nuclear inspections from the IAEA, a huge concession. However, Iran responded that’s not the case and it didn’t negotiate nuclear matters so far in Switzerland.

On Hormuz, the Iranian view remains it will manage the strait and charge for passage within months: Trump’s is the polar opposite. That’s as transits seem to be running at around a quarter to a third of normal levels, at best. Indeed, the squeeze in bunker fuel is still evident in rising ocean carrier freight rates.

On Lebanon, a new deconfliction mechanism is floated that excludes Israel, as PM Netanyahu, Defence Minister Katz, and IDF head Zamir reiterated a pledge to “continue to act decisively” and hold their security zone there, including the 1km-long, 25-metre deep underground Hezbollah missile and drone base in Ali Taher ridge, evidence of how much Iran has ploughed into its proxy. Separately, the Israeli and Lebanese governments will meet in Washington to discuss normalization and elusive Hezbollah disarmament; and in the background, Syria has signaled that, after Trump's suggestion, it will only engage Hezbollah if Lebanon requests it.

The Saudi paper Asharq Al-Awsat reports Hamas held a top-secret meeting with French officials to discuss a possible return to '1967 borders', which they’ve floated before as a temporary truce, that could unlock Trump’s Board of Peace and ‘Gaza-Lago’ redevelopment plans.

Yet the Jerusalem Post reports new Mossad boss Gofman is taking the agency “by storm” and is ramping up plans to topple the Islamic regime. So, what’s it to be in the Middle East, beyond the current calm?

"Something wicked this way comes"

UK PM Starmer resigned, as former Mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham sealed his doom by coming to high Done-inane, swearing in as an MP in Westminster after not being one a week ago. The UK press is abuzz with discussions of who will be in his cabinet, like what’s-his-face and that-one-from-a-few-years-ago. There’s a natural market focus on who’ll be the Thane of Cawdor Chancellor: Burnham needs to reassure Gilts that fiscal rules will be adhered to and his leftwing backbenchers that he’s offering something new enough that his popularity won’t follow the same rapid downwards trajectory as that of Starmer, Sunak, Truss, Johnson, and May.

One immediate impact is that the July EU-UK summit has been postponed: nobody knows what Burnham’s view re: the EU will be, but he has previously backed rejoining.

“If you can look into the seeds of time; And say which grain will grow and which will not.”

In Asia, India launched three warships as a show of force to China in the Indian Ocean, as the US Department of War renamed its Indo-Pacific Command back to the Pacific Command, signalling a de-prioritisation of the area matching Europe re: NATO and the Middle East re: Iran and Israel. In East Asia, where the US is outsourcing its Taiwan-focused efforts to Japan and the Philippines, China says it warned off multiple Japanese ‘provocations’ during its recent aircraft carrier drills.

"Is this a dagger which I see before me?"

In related geoeconomics, China announced it’s targeting US rare earths firms in response to a Pentagon list of Chinese firms: this is largely a symbolic move, but it still underlines the tensions in this area. So does the Nikkei reporting that ‘China minerals control threatens EU rearmament, as bloc seeks new sources’: as we have long warned, even if you can afford a dagger, you can’t make it without rare earths, and Europe still hasn’t secured enough supply. More positively, the aluminium squeeze caused by the closure of Hormuz is being ameliorated by Chinese supply and dark transits from the Middle East.

“If it were done when ’tis done, then ’twere well; It were done quickly.”

In politics, besides Starmerama, another political scandal in Spain, and gridlock in choosing a new PM in Romania, the US Supreme Court looks set for three key rulings ahead:  

Trump v. Slaughter reviews the long-standing precedent that restricts a president from firing heads of independent federal agencies (like the FTC) without "good cause". A ruling for Trump could alter the structure of the US government, allowing presidents to dismiss leaders of independent regulatory and financial institutions at will – including members of the Fed.

Trump vs. Barbara addresses the constitutionality of an executive order restricting birthright citizenship, denying automatic citizenship to children born on US soil if their parents are not US citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Watson v. Republican National Committee revolves around the constitutionality of state laws that allow mail-in ballots to be received and counted after Election Day, as long as they were officially cast or postmarked by that day. Naturally, this would shake up the mid-term, and all subsequent, US elections.

“Two truths are told; As happy prologues to the swelling act; Of th’imperial theme”

Meanwhile in markets, China introduced technical changes to bridge the gap between onshore CNY and offshore CNH in authorising six state-owned banks to conduct CNH transactions in the Shanghai Free Trade Zone as a ‘sand box’ as the PBoC expanded cross-border e-CNY agreements with 26 financial institutions. This isn’t China floating its currency; neither does this work around China’s ever-larger net trade surpluses, where earning CNH is very hard for most counterparties, limits the ability to internationalise CNH via the ‘USD’ method. Yet it speaks to a potential parallel CNH internationalisation where domestic liquidity backs that required offshore while retaining capital controls. With the US is moving ahead with plans for US dollar stablecoins, which have some similar aims, international payment systems, commodity supply chains, defence tech, and AI are going to become a stacked, contested space. Watch it; and what happens in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Over time, the FX market will grasp what it means.

“Out, damned spot! Out, I say!”

Markets are going for the easy option on all of the above news for now: Brent oil was at $78 at time of writing; bond yields were lower; and SpaceX looked like it was testing re-entry, having fallen around $600bn from its recent post-IPO peak.

"Methought I heard a voice cry, ‘Sleep no more! Macbeth does murder sleep’." That’s how I feel.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 11:55

Meta Widens Smart-Glasses Lead With $299 Models, Leaving Apple And Snapchat Chasing AI Wearable Race

Meta Platforms continues to gain momentum in the smart-glasses race with an extended push into affordable eyewear priced at $299, below its current Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer model, Snapchat's $2,200 glasses, and Apple's $3,000-plus Vision Pro headset.

Bloomberg reports that Meta unveiled the Adventurer and Fury glasses, each priced at $299 - or about $80 below its Ray-Ban Meta Wayfarer smart glasses model. Meta also introduced a $399 Starfire model in collaboration with Kylie Jenner, targeting cash-strapped Gen Z and millennial consumers.

EssilorLuxottica, Meta's smart-glasses partner and the parent of Ray-Ban and Oakley, will manufacture the new models.

Meta's new Adventurer smart glases.Photographer: Mark Gurman/Bloomberg

We have detailed Meta's smart-glasses supply chain at length, and Goldman analyst Jerry Shen recently published a deep dive mapping the key suppliers powering the emerging AI and AR eyewear markets.

EssilorLuxottica's CEO said the cheaper Meta smart glasses are designed to "drive access to broader audiences," adding that "more price-sensitive consumers will have an opportunity to experience the power that wearables bring into their everyday lives."

Last week, Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel debuted goofy $2,220 smart glasses...

Evan Spiegel showing off the new Specs AR glasses to the public for the first time. pic.twitter.com/pCYBLU9xxH

— Nathie (@NathieVR) June 16, 2026

...which Wall Street analysts viewed less as a mass-market consumer glasses and more as a developer kit, given the steep price point.

Clearly, Spiegel learned little from Apple's Vision Pro debut a few years ago, which failed to attract mainstream consumers because of its $3,000-plus price point.

Apple has certainly taken note of Meta's successful push into smart glasses and is expected to launch more affordable glasses in late 2027.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 11:05

Trump Signs Orders For Quantum Computer, Cryptography Upgrades

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

US President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Monday to push to build a quantum computer and to focus on creating cryptography that can resist quantum attacks.

The orders aim to take a “cohesive, whole-of-government approach” to accelerate the deployment and commercialization of quantum computing and “protect sensitive technologies and work with allies to ensure adversaries cannot use QIST [Quantum Information Science and Technology] to undermine national security.”

The orders come as China ramps up its quantum computing ambitions following the announcement of its “Five-Year Plan” in March, which aims to expand investment in scalable quantum computers and the development of an integrated space-earth quantum communication network. 

Investing in American quantum leadership like never before.

President Trump signs executive orders on quantum, supercharging a national effort in innovation in quantum technologies, ensuring national security and continuing American growth in a critical industry. 💻🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/cQmdCs0s4N

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2026

Trump’s orders state that within 180 days, relevant agencies must update the National Quantum Strategy to support commercialization and industry partnerships. 

Various agencies are also tasked with identifying implications of increasing scale and performance of commercial quantum computers, “such as the implications for the migration to post-quantum cryptography.”

The order also establishes Quantum Computer for Application Development and Discovery Science (QC-ADDS), a national effort to pursue the development of a quantum computer at a scale intended to “initiate the era of quantum-enabled scientific discovery.”

Focus on post-quantum cryptography

The other executive order aims to secure the US against quantum-assisted cryptographic attacks and is more focused on upgrading to post-quantum cryptography.

“We’re going to be investing in American quantum leadership like never before to stay ahead of the pack,” Trump said.

The order directs the Office of Management and Budget and the National Cyber Director to lead an accelerated, nationwide migration to post-quantum cryptography, ensuring the nation’s data stays secure as quantum technology evolves. 

“The advent of large-scale quantum computers, particularly in the hands of adversaries, will pose a significant threat to widely used cryptographic security systems,” the order said. 

Major crypto blockchains such as Ethereum and Solana have already started working on post-quantum roadmaps, while the Bitcoin community is still divided on how to approach securing old coins against the quantum threat.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 10:45