Aggregator
Watch moment US missiles strikes 3rd tanker violating Gulf of Oman blockade
South Korean ex-President Yoon Suk Yeol sentenced to prison term of 30 years over military drone incursion
Fool Me Once? Shame On You. Fool Me 39 Times...?
By Molly Schwartz, cross-asset macro strategist at Rabobank
After several days of strikes against Iran, and several morning announcements that strikes were set to continue, Trump announced via Truth Social that the “scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran” have been cancelled as a peace deal has been agreed upon. Indeed, “discussions and final points have been, in both concept and great detail, approved by all parties involved…the Naval Blockade will remain in full force and effect until this transaction is finalized — time and place of the signing to be announced shortly.”
According to our recently published energy strategy report, 103 Days, 38 Peace Deals, yesterday’s announcement would constitute the 39th peace deal declared since the onset of the war. Speaking of, the report highlights the “massive drop in Chinese imports,” leading to a downward adjustment of Rabobank’s brent crude oil forecasts, now projecting $103/bbl in Q3 of this year.
WATCH: CNN montage of Trump saying he's close to a deal with Iran. He's made the claim 39 times since the war began.pic.twitter.com/o2j782A2jF
— Clash Report (@clashreport) June 12, 2026But back to the peace deal, it should be noted that the provided list of “all parties involved” does not include one party who some would argue is pretty heavily involved…Iran. Perhaps Iran was counted in the “and others” part of the list, but this wouldn’t be the first time the US proposed a deal it thinks Iran can’t refuse, just for Iran to either outright refuse it, or announce that it never received such a peace deal in the first place. It should also be noted that some of the “involved parties” who were listed, like Israel and Pakistan, have confirmed that they had not been informed of any agreement at the time the peace deal was initially announced.
That doesn’t mean that this peace deal is for certain another empty announcement. Indeed, economists often assume things turn out similar to precedent, of course, until they don’t. But the market’s reaction to the deal coupled with the major IPO events today may add further credence to our view that defense-related rhetoric these days has just as much to do with financial markets as they do with geopolitics.
The S&P 500 had sunk around 4.4% from its recent high of $7,610 to $7,277. The peace deal announcement, however, sparked a sharp sell-off in brent crude oil of $3, breaking to its lowest level since April. The move in oil dragged interest rates down—with the 10 year down more than 8bp to trade below 4.45% again—and pulled stocks back up, fueling an almost 1.7% upwards jump in the S&P and a 3.5% jump in the NASDAQ. Coincidentally, SpaceX’s IPO, which has been said to “draw more than $100 billion in retail orders,” is also scheduled for today.
Early yesterday morning, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on X that “any damage [Iran] inflicts on our allies in the Gulf will be paid for with funds extracted from Iranian accounts. Any tolls paid to the Persian Gulf Strait Authority will be offset by funds extracted from their accounts.” This draws attention to one of the key contentions between the US and Iran when it comes to striking a deal, in that Iran wants USD 12 billion of Iranian funds unfrozen if an interim deal is achieved, which the US is reluctant to accept, remembering when the Obama Administration unfroze around USD 100 billion as part of the JCPOA in 2015, the consequences of which the US may or may not be dealing with today.
But Axios reports that this peace deal is different from the others, with “sources” saying that “gaps have been narrowed” on key issues like unfreezing Iranian assets, the process for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and how negotiations surrounding Iran’s nuclear program would be conducted.
Rates started the day yesterday bubbling higher after a hot PPI print, registering 1.1% m/m in the headline and 0.8% m/m when excluding food, energy, and trade. While the 1.1% headline print is hot enough to give anyone the sweats, the core print is particularly concerning, as it strips out the first order inflationary effects and reveals that second order inflation pressures may have already started to crawl out of the woodwork on the production side. There is only so much time before these costs are likely to be passed onto the consumer. After the PPI data release, the OIS curve had been pricing in around one Fed hike by year end. However, that number dropped to only 70% of a hike after the peace deal announcement.
In the Eurozone, meanwhile, the ECB is already full steam ahead. Yesterday, the ECB released its decision to raise the deposit facility rate by 25bp to 2.25%, making it the first major central bank to hike rates. The decision statement cites that “the war in the Middle East is generating inflation pressures, and the decision to raise rates is robust across a range of scenarios mapping out how the shock might evolve and affect the medium-term outlook for the euro area.” Our ECB whisperer, Bas van Geffen, is forecasting the next hike at the September meeting.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 09:45Selena Gomez hits back at claims she ‘insulted’ BFF Taylor Swift with eyebrow-raising comment
Selena Gomez hits back at claims she ‘insulted’ BFF Taylor Swift with eyebrow-raising comment
Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Bars Texas AG Paxton's Lawsuit Against ActBlue
Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,
A federal judge has barred Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from pursuing his state court lawsuit against ActBlue, a major Democratic online fundraising platform.
President Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns ruled Thursday that the case represented no more than a retaliation campaign for ActBlue’s political activities supporting Paxton’s opponent in the 2026 U.S. Senate race.
Stearns issued a preliminary injunction preventing Paxton from pursuing the Texas case. The judge found the lawsuit attempted to undermine protected political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment.
“The truth is plain and captured in Paxton’s own declarations: The lawsuit was filed in retaliation for (and in an attempt to suppress) ActBlue’s efforts to fund Talarico’s campaign,” Stearns wrote in the ruling.
Neither Paxton’s office nor ActBlue immediately returned a request for comment.
Paxton filed the initial lawsuit in April in Texas state court as he campaigned as the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate seat.
The suit singled out ActBlue, a Massachusetts-based fundraising platform that claims to have raised billions for Democratic candidates and causes since its founding in 2004. It sought civil penalties and an order blocking ActBlue from accepting certain gift card donations.
The Texas attorney general alleged that ActBlue employed deceptive practices after the fundraising platform resumed gift card and foreign prepaid debit card donations after informing Congress that it had ceased conducting the transactions. Paxton alleged the practices could empower foreign nationals to hide their identities while making political contributions, potentially in violation of state law.
The action mirrors wider Republican-led scrutiny of online fundraising platforms, which has included directives from the Trump administration to the Justice Department.
ActBlue responded with its own federal lawsuit filed in Boston in May. The platform contended that Paxton’s investigation and state court lawsuit amounted to unconstitutional retaliation designed to punish it for supporting Democratic candidates, namely Democrat James Talarico, Paxton’s opponent in the Texas Senate contest. ActBlue requested the court declare the actions violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and to block them.
Stearns ruled on behalf of ActBlue on the preliminary request, criticizing what he said was Paxton’s history of filing retaliatory lawsuits. The injunction bars Paxton from advancing the state case.
ActBlue’s operations have received increased scrutiny lately. The platform’s CEO, Regina Wallace-Jones, appeared before a House Administration Committee hearing as panel Republicans questioned the organization’s processes for screening foreign contributions and more. Wallace-Jones invoked her Fifth Amendment right during the session. She wrote in an opinion article published in The Washington Post on the same day that she would do so “against self-incrimination.”
ActBlue has long been the primary vehicle for small-dollar donations to Democratic candidates and progressive organizations.
Thursday’s ruling allows ActBlue to continue operations while the related claims work their way through the legal system.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 09:10Christina Applegate’s former co-star gives rare update on actress’ ‘very hard’ MS battle after hospitalization
Christina Applegate’s former co-star gives rare update on actress’ ‘very hard’ MS battle after hospitalization
Did ‘Euphoria’ Star Colman Domingo Just Confirm Zendaya And Sydney Sweeney Feud Rumors?
‘Cape Fear’ Episode 3 Ending Explained: Javier Bardem Says Juliette Lewis’s Mysterious Stalker Connects to the “Childhood Trauma of Max Cady”
‘Dutton Ranch’ Episode 6 Kills [SPOILER] In Jaw-Dropping Twist
‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ All Stars 11 bracket 3 break down Episode 7 in Confession Cube
‘RuPaul’s Drag Race’ All Stars 11 bracket 3 break down Episode 7 in Confession Cube
BetMGM bonus code NYPNEWSGET: Get up to $1K in no-sweat tokens for Canada vs. Bosnia
MLB Power Rankings, Award Tracker: Shohei Ohtani might run away with MVP
Carmelo Anthony appears to launch relationship with NFL widow Racquel Smith in flirty photos
Plane with 267 passengers clips radar pole after landing — sparking panic as oxygen masks drop
DOJ Probes Big Banks For Alleged "Debanking" Of Clients
The US Dept of Justice is intensifying scrutiny of some of the country’s largest financial institutions over allegations that customers were denied banking services, or "debanked" for political or ideological reasons, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The US Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, led by Jeanine Pirro, has reportedly issued subpoenas to several major banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo. Investigators are seeking information on account closures, customer offboarding decisions, and internal records explaining why certain individuals or businesses were denied access to banking services.
According to the WSJ, the inquiry builds on a broader effort launched by the Trump administration to examine claims that banks used their market power to exclude politically disfavored customers or entire industries from the financial system. Supporters of the investigation argue that concerns about debanking have circulated for years, particularly among conservatives and businesses operating in controversial but legal sectors, yet have received limited attention from regulators and law enforcement.
According to reports, prosecutors are requesting lists of customers who may have been removed from banking relationships, as well as documentation supporting those decisions. The investigation appears to be running alongside a review by federal banking regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which previously indicated it had found preliminary evidence suggesting certain industries may have faced heightened barriers to banking access.
Banks have consistently rejected accusations that political affiliation plays any role in their decisions. Industry representatives maintain that account closures are driven by compliance obligations, anti-money-laundering requirements, risk management concerns, and other regulatory expectations imposed on financial institutions.
A central issue for investigators will be whether any laws were violated when banks chose to terminate customer relationships or avoid particular sectors altogether. Prosecutors are reportedly evaluating potential claims under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA), a statute that has historically been used in major financial misconduct cases.
The investigation represents one of the most significant federal efforts to date to examine allegations of politically motivated debanking. Whether it ultimately uncovers unlawful conduct remains to be seen, but for many observers, the fact that federal authorities are now formally examining these claims is a step that should have happened years ago.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 08:50