Zero Rss

Are You Ready For The "Rogue AI" Psy-Op?

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

The AIs are breaking free, that’s the story.

It started two weeks ago, when OpenAI reported one of their “agents” had escaped its testing area and got loose on the internet to launch an “unprecedented cyber attack”.

This was clearly meant to be scarier than the public response indicated, because a few days later OpenAI CEO Sam Altman was on the Invest like the Best podcast, asking why it didn’t cause more panic:

“I’ve been a little surprised that more people don’t feel it so viscerally”

In one of the most hilariously obvious propaganda manoeuvres of the year, just the day after Altman said that, CNN headlined:

The OpenAI lab leak was more extensive than we thought

“That thing you weren’t scared of? Well it was even SCARIER than we said it was! Are you scared now?”

We weren’t.

But the lack of public panic didn’t stop another AI going rogue a few days later, Anthropic’s Claude model this time.

And then OpenAI reporting two further incidents themselves.

UPDATE: Just a couple of hours after publication, META joined the party. Apparently their AI “went rogue” too, and hacked another firm.

Never in the history of human endeavour have companies been so keen to report their products going wrong. It seems a rogue AI is the latest must-have accessory in Silicon Valley.

The reasoning behind this is not hard to follow. When your product is artificial intelligence, melodramatically realising your system is even smarter than you thought it was is a simple marketing ploy.

And when one of your rivals goes rogue, you have to go rogue too or you are as good as admitting your model is not as smart as theirs.

“AI company admits their model is smarter than they realised!” is just an advert in scary headline form.

It’s like Ford “admitting” their cars are even more fuel efficient than they planned. Or McDonalds realising their cooks have “gone rogue” and are producing food that is both cheaper AND more delicious than they ever anticipated.

But there’s more to this than just techno-hype and viral marketing strategy. We’re being steered down the avenue of “AI as scary threat”.

See, for example, the dozens of stories talking up rogue AIs from the Guardian to the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal.

“Rogue” is clearly the word of the day. Notice they don’t say it “malfunctioned” or there was an “error”, because that implies mistakes or poor design.

No, the AI “went rogue”, which is cool and sexy and scary at the same time. A word chosen by a focus group of perma-teen marketing executives who have watched too much sci-fi.

Speaking of perma-teens who watch too much sci-fi, here’s Sam Altman (again) declaring we’ve already reached the singularity, the mythic phase of technological development when machines become smart enough to make even smarter versions of themselves without human input.

He is talking rubbish, of course, but the story is the story here. Why would he say this? Why now?

Obviously concerned that this tidal wave of propaganda was being too subtle, in came NBC to really hammer the point home:

The breaches signal that AI’s expanding capabilities are already fueling the security threat experts long feared.

Everybody got that?

It goes on and on.

Just today we’re getting reports from the UK’s brand new AI Security Institute that rogue (there’s that word again) AI agents had tried to trick people by creating false identities.

And I think that’s beginning to circle around to at least part of the wider agenda here.

After all, if AI is so good at pretending to be human, and is out there creating fake identities to steal data, well…how can we tell who is really human?

Perhaps everyone should be issued a digital ID to assist in “proving humanity”.

That’s not me saying it, it’s think tanks like OneID or “experts” testifying in front of congress.

But the ever present push of Digital ID is just one of the more obvious of a raft of potential issues raised by the scary AI narrative.

For now we’re still in the generating fear phase. Getting pumped full of scare hormones by articles like this…

Misleading AI-generated doctors pose ‘huge danger to public safety’

- The Guardian

While they tease vague solutions in headlines like this…

When biologists experiment on dangerous viruses, they do so under strict regulations to prevent leaks or escapes. But no such rules exist to prevent AI agents from similarly escaping – even though the consequences could be catastrophic.

That’s not a theoretical concern: An… pic.twitter.com/kGxVFX8HtB

— CNN International (@cnni) July 24, 2026

That’s a nice one, because it garnishes the AI main course with a soupçon of lab-leak flavour (something else that is doing the fear-porn rounds this week).

There are hints of legislation to come, the EU’s “AI transparency” rules just came into force this week, and the US demanding “kill switches” in AI models, but they are vague for now.

My soft prediction is that, before the end of the year, there will be a “rogue AI” false flag, which allegedly causes either loss of life or some massive financial losses.

I think financial would be the way to go, because they’re always looking for a reason to start a recession or banking crisis, and one they can blame on a third party is too good an opportunity to miss.

Whatever happens, there will be loud calls to “regulate AI”, but what that might mean in real terms I couldn’t say at this point.

To be clear though, if and/or when the official solutions to made-up problem #4987 are finally rolled out, they will have nothing at all do with controlling AI, and everything to do with controlling you.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 23:25

The Vanishing Art Of Presence

Authored by Joseph Varon via Brownstone Institute,

Medicine is always changing. In my career, I have seen intensive care units go from simple rooms with oxygen, monitors, and clinical intuition to places where artificial intelligence can predict problems before we notice them, bedside ultrasound helps us avoid guessing, and robotic systems help surgeons work with great precision. Telemedicine now lets specialists care for patients who are far away. These advances have saved lives, made care more accessible, improved efficiency, and helped doctors reach patients who might not have seen a specialist otherwise.

Many studies show how valuable telemedicine is, especially in underserved areas and critical care settings where specialists are scarce (1). I welcome these innovations and use many of them daily. I am convinced that artificial intelligence (AI) will become one of the most important tools doctors have ever had. Recent reviews also suggest that AI will help doctors make decisions, not replace them (2). Still, no matter how advanced our tools get, they should help us do our jobs better, not change what our jobs are about.

A recent lawsuit about the death of a very sick young man has sparked a lot of talk in the medical community (3). Reports say that one question is whether the doctor in charge ever actually examined the patient in person. The courts will figure out what really happened, so I won't guess or assign blame. What worries me is not the lawsuit itself, but the bigger question it raises. Are we starting to think that because technology lets us care for patients from a distance, being there in person is no longer necessary?

When I started practicing medicine, this question would have seemed impossible. We took blood pressure by hand, read chest X-rays on lighted boxes, and depended on physical exams because we had no other choice. We were always close to our patients. We shook hands, sat with families during hard times, and listened not just to heartbeats and breaths, but also to the pauses, the worry in a spouse's voice, the fear behind hopeful words, and the small signs that told us more than any lab test. Sometimes I think those moments taught us as much as any textbook.

Today, we have abilities my mentors never dreamed of. We can look at scans from across the world in seconds. A neurologist can check on a stroke patient from far away. An intensive care doctor can watch over several ICUs at once from a central location. Algorithms constantly review patient data and spot patterns we might miss. These advances are real progress, and many people are alive today because doctors were willing to try new technology. Ignoring these innovations would not just be unwise - it would be wrong.

Presence Begins before the First Word

One of the first lessons I learned as a young physician was never formally taught during medical school. It did not appear in anatomy, physiology, pathology, pharmacology, or any board examination I ever took. Yet it has influenced my practice. One of the first things I learned as a young doctor was never taught in medical school. It wasn't in any class or exam, but it has shaped how I practice more than any lecture or textbook.

Before we say anything, look at lab results, or make a diagnosis, our patients are already deciding if they trust us. Turning our attention to the computer screen. None of these actions appears in clinical guidelines. None contributes directly to a hospital quality score. Yet they often determine whether patients truly hear what we are trying to tell them. Information delivered without trust rarely changes behavior. Information delivered by someone who has earned trust often changes lives.

With all our excitement about efficiency, connection, and new technology, I worry that we are forgetting one of the oldest and most important parts of medicine: simply being there with another person. Presence is hard to measure. It doesn't show up on dashboards, billing codes, or reports. Artificial intelligence can't chart it, and it's hard for anyone to put a price on it.

Nevertheless, every experienced physician understands its extraordinary importance. Presence reassures before a single medication is administered. Presence builds trust before difficult decisions must be made. Presence allows physicians to observe details that no monitor can. Still, every experienced doctor knows how important presence is. Just being there can comfort someone before any medicine is given. It builds trust before tough choices. It lets us notice things no machine can pick up.

Most of all, it reminds patients and families they are not facing illness by themselves. Conversations influence decisions, strengthen therapeutic alliances, and frequently reveal information that would otherwise remain hidden. A frightened patient often tells us something entirely different after five quiet minutes than during the first hurried 60 seconds. Families ask different questions when they believe their physician is genuinely listening. These moments cannot be programmed into an algorithm because they are not transactions of information. They are exchanges of humanity.

The Physical Examination Is More Than Diagnosis

Medical students often see the physical exam as just a way to gather information for a diagnosis. But with experience, doctors learn it means much more. The physical exam is often the first way we help our patients.

When I place a stethoscope on a patient's chest, I am certainly listening for murmurs, crackles, wheezing, or diminished breath sounds. But I am also communicating something much deeper. I am telling that patient, when I use my stethoscope to listen to a patient's chest, I'm checking for things like murmurs, crackles, or wheezing. But I'm also sending a deeper message. Without words, I'm telling the patient, "You have my attention. You matter. I am here." The coolness of an extremity. The slight tremor that no monitor records. The fear hidden behind forced optimism. Every experienced clinician has stories in which these seemingly insignificant observations altered diagnosis, redirected therapy, or changed an entire conversation with a family.

Artificial intelligence will likely become the best tool ever made for spotting patterns. I truly believe that. But people can do something just as important - we notice when someone is suffering.

Those are not the same thing.

Telemedicine Is One of Medicine's Greatest Success Stories

Let me be clear. I am not arguing against telemedicine. In fact, I fully support it.

Telemedicine has transformed healthcare. It has brought stroke neurologists into rural emergency departments within minutes. It has allowed intensivists to support community hospitals lacking around-the-clock critical care expertise. It has connected specialists with patients separated by oceans, mountains, and deserts. During the Covid-19 pandemic, it allowed physicians to continue caring for patients while limiting unnecessary exposure. Countless lives have been improved, and undoubtedly many have been saved because physicians embraced this remarkable technology rather than resisted it.

I have participated in telemedicine consultations myself. Its future is extraordinarily bright. It represents one of the finest examples of technology extending the reach of experienced physicians to places where those physicians cannot physically be.

But extending our reach and replacing our presence are not the same thing.

Technology was made to help us reach across distances, not to take away our presence when we can still be there. If we mix up these ideas, we might start thinking convenience is more important than what truly helps our patients.

Artificial Intelligence Should Make Us Better Physicians

Artificial intelligence will change medicine more than anything else I've seen in my career. It will quickly summarize records, spot medication problems, help with diagnoses, find small changes in images, predict problems before we see signs, and cut down on mistakes. These are exciting changes, and doctors should welcome them, not fear them.

Doctors who don't learn about AI will eventually be left behind. Every generation has had to adapt to big changes. My mentors learned to use ventilators, CT scans, and bedside ultrasounds. My generation got used to electronic records and advanced monitors. The next generation will become experts in artificial intelligence.

The mistake won't be using AI. The mistake will be thinking that just because AI can think, it can also care.

Medicine has always been about both science and relationships. Science gives us many answers, but relationships help us with questions that science can't solve.

The Illusion of Efficiency

Modern healthcare is very focused on efficiency. We track things like how long patients stay, how often they come back, paperwork, patient flow, and many other numbers. These measures are important, and using resources wisely does matter.

But we can't let our focus on efficiency make us forget about the human side of medicine.

Technology has definitely saved doctor's time. But, ironically, most of that time hasn't gone back to patients. Instead, it's been taken up by paperwork, admin tasks, rules, and emails. The same tools that were supposed to free us often end up keeping us stuck at our computers.

Perhaps the greatest irony of modern medicine is that technology has made it easier than ever to communicate. Maybe the biggest irony in medicine today is that technology makes it easier to communicate, but real human connection is becoming rarer. A physician sitting quietly with a frightened family may prevent misunderstandings that would otherwise require days to repair. Sometimes the fastest way to solve a medical problem is to slow down long enough to understand the person who is experiencing it.

Teaching the Next Generation

I have spent much of my career teaching. Whether I'm in Houston, Jakarta, Bali, Mexico City, or anywhere else, I am always impressed by today's trainees. They have instant access to medical knowledge that older generations couldn't imagine. They pick up technology quickly, and many already use artificial intelligence in smart and careful ways.

I hope that we teach them something technology can never replace. Let's teach them to sit down before delivering devastating news. Let's teach them that silence sometimes communicates more than another explanation. I hope we teach them that touching a patient's shoulder may provide reassurance that no medication can duplicate. Medicine has become afraid of touch. Yet a hand on the shoulder. Holding a patient's hand. Touching a forehead. Helping someone sit up. Those things matter. AI can never reproduce that.

Most of all, I want to show them that every monitor, algorithm, scan, lab result, and AI tool is there for one reason; to help us care better for another person. If technology ever becomes more important than the patient in medicine, we will have lost sight of what medicine is really about.

Looking Forward without Looking Away

Sir William Osler told doctors long ago that it's more important to know what kind of person has a disease than what kind of disease a person has (5). Even after a hundred years, this is still true. Diseases follow science, but patients have families, cultures, fears, hopes, values, and beliefs. If we forget that, medicine might be technically great but emotionally empty.

That may be why I continue traveling. Maybe that's why I still travel the world to teach, even after all these years. Whether I'm in North America, Latin America, Europe, or Asia, I keep seeing the same thing. Doctors may speak different languages, work in different systems, and deal with different challenges, but they all know the same moment: when a doctor walks into a patient's room, and everything changes just because someone is truly there. That moment can't be turned into data, outsourced, or given to artificial intelligence.

Choosing between technology and humanity has always been a false choice. We should enthusiastically embrace artificial intelligence, telemedicine, predictive analytics, robotic surgery, and every innovation capable of improving patient care. We should invest in them, teach them, refine them, and continue pushing the boundaries of what medicine can accomplish. But we must never confuse assistance with replacement. Technology should expand the reach of compassionate physicians, not provide an excuse for compassionate physicians to disappear.

The lawsuit that made me think about all this will go through the courts, and the facts will come out in time. No matter what happens, though, the questions it raises are important for every doctor to consider. As we build the hospitals of the future, what kind of medicine do we want to see? Should it be all about connection, efficiency, and computing power? Or should technology be a powerful tool that supports something deeply and unchangeably human? I hope the answer is obvious.

One day artificial intelligence may analyze every laboratory value before I even open a patient's chart. It may recognize physiologic deterioration hours before I do. Telemedicine may connect every specialist on Earth with every patient who needs them. Those achievements will represent extraordinary victories for medicine, and I will enthusiastically celebrate every one of them. But, I hope we never reach a point where a scared patient thinks a screen is the same as a doctor, an algorithm is the same as judgment, or data is the same as compassion. Medicine has always been a science, but at its best, it is also a deeply human relationship.

Technology can extend our reach. It must never replace our presence. When historians look back at this era of medicine, they will undoubtedly marvel at artificial intelligence, genomic medicine, robotics, and technologies we can scarcely imagine today. I hope they will also be able to say that physicians had the wisdom to preserve the one innovation that never needed improving: the simple act of one human being caring for another.

References

1. Totten AM, Hansen RN, Wagner J, et al. Telehealth for Acute and Chronic Care Consultations. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 216. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2019.
2. Topol EJ. Deep Medicine: How Artificial Intelligence Can Make Healthcare Human Again. New York: Basic Books; 2019.
3. Fierce Healthcare. Yale New Haven Health hospitals' tele-ICU model highlighted in wrongful death lawsuit. 2026.
4. Peabody FW. The care of the patient. JAMA. 1927;88:877-882.
5. Osler W. Aequanimitas: With Other Addresses to Medical Students, Nurses and Practitioners of Medicine. Philadelphia: P. Blakiston's Son & Co.; 1904.

Joseph Varon, MD, is a critical care physician, professor, and President of the Independent Medical Alliance. He has authored over 980 peer-reviewed publications and serves as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Independent Medicine.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 22:35

Trump Signs Orders To Curb Birthright Citizenship, Target Birth Tourism

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders Thursday that will restrict automatic citizenship to ​children born in the United States because of commercial birth tourism and several other factors.

One of the measures bans birth tourism, the practice of traveling to the United States on a tourist visa with the intention to have a child that is given automatic U.S. citizenship.

Trump called it “a big deal” and said during the signing ceremony that birthright citizenship has been made into a joke.

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 30 struck down Trump’s executive order excluding children of illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors from automatic birthright citizenship.

Trump called the Supreme Court decision “very unfortunate” and said his administration was making adjustments.

“We had a very unfortunate decision in the Supreme Court concerning birthright,” Trump said in the Oval Office.

“It was close, but a very, very unfortunate decision. So we’re making adjustments because it’s very unfair.”

As Tom Gantert reports for The Epoch Times, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security adviser Stephen Miller said the 14th Amendment was passed right after the Civil War to ensure the children of slaves would be citizens.

“It had no other meaning and purpose other than that,” Miller said during the press conference.

Miller said one executive order will expand the definition of people who are ineligible for birthright citizenship.

“That includes, for instance, alien enemies of the United States, members of foreign terrorist organizations, and large categories of people who lobby and act on behalf of foreign governments,” he said.

Miller said the second action Trump took would ban birth tourism.

“The idea that people come here, pretend to be a tourist, pretend to be a visitor, say they want to go to Disney Land … but the real reason they are here is to have a child, make that child an automatic citizen, leave our country, and then have a U.S. citizen child—it gives them access, under this broken system, to welfare benefits, ultimately the voting booth … that practice of birth tourism, is as of the signing of this order, hereby banned.”

Trump said that wealthy people were building businesses around birthright citizenship.

“That’s not the way it was suppose to work. It’s a disgrace,” Trump said. “They are buying their way in. We are not going to let it happen.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 22:10

Judge Says Updated National Firearms Act Violates Constitution

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns in the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional.

In the case of Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix found that the requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority once the NFA’s taxes on making or transferring those arms were eliminated. The taxes were reduced to zero last year.

The court found that the NFA, as enacted in 1934, passed constitutional muster as an act of Congress’s taxing power because the regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—aided the collection of NFA taxes.

This is in line with the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case, Sonzinsky v. United States, in which the high court ruled the NFA is a legal exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. In that decision, the court found that the government could gather information on the owners of certain firearms and their accessories that were subject to the NFA’s $200 excise as part of the tax collection process.

Wednesday’s ruling in response to two consolidated cases—Jensen v. ATF, with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF—in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, held that once Congress eliminated the taxes for suppressors, the constitutional foundation for registration was eliminated as well.

“In sum, the Court concludes that the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional,” Hendrix’s ruling states.

On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category labeled “any other weapon” from $200 to $0. However, the items were still required to be registered under the NFA.

Machine guns and destructive devices are still subject to the $200 tax and its requirements. Under Hendrix’s ruling, the category “any other weapons” is still subject to the requirements even though it is not taxed.

The court has issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but leaves them in place for the “any other weapons” category.

Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to allow the government to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The government argued that the provisions were justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause.

In its court filings, the government pointed out that NFA-regulated businesses are subject to other federal taxes. Therefore, the registration requirements are part of the overall taxing process. The defendants said this has been recognized in prior Supreme Court cases.

“It’s long been settled that the NFA’s requirements aid in the assessment, collection, and enforcement of the Act’s taxes and are thus justified under Congress’s taxing power. Shortly after the NFA’s enactment, in United States v. Sonzinsky, the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the NFA’s special occupational tax on firearm dealers, holding that Congress had the power to impose the tax even if it was intended to “restrict or suppress the thing taxed,” the government’s response reads.

Second Amendment advocates hailed Wednesday’s decision.

“We are delighted with the ruling from Judge Hendrix,” Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Chairman Alan Gottlieb wrote in a statement. “With the tax no longer in existence, there was no logical reason for the ATF’s registration requirement to continue. With this victory setting a precedent, we anticipate success in the other cases involving our sister organization, Second Amendment Foundation.”

National Rifle Association leaders, one of the plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, also praised the ruling, and vowed to continue pushing for the end of the NFA.

“Our successful effort to eliminate the $200 NFA tax created the opening for our world-class attorneys to secure this historic federal court ruling that the NFA is unconstitutional. The fight to fully repeal this archaic gun-control measure is not over, but today’s decision is a major step in the right direction,” John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislation Action, stated in an email to The Epoch Times.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act originally repealed the NFA’s excise tax. That language was removed, and the tax was instead reduced to zero, after Congressional Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough determined a repeal did not comport with the tax purposes of the bill.

Gun Owners of America has contended that the ATF and other federal agencies have used the information gathered to build a de facto gun registry. The group has declared that part of its mission is to have the government destroy information it has that could be used to build a registry.

The ATF has strongly denied that such a registry exists.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 21:45

These Are America's Fastest-Aging States

America’s population is getting older, but some states are aging much faster than others.

Using U.S. Census Bureau data compiled by USAFacts, this ranking, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, shows how much each state’s population aged 65 and older grew between 2014 and 2024.

Growth in 65-and-Older Populations (2014-2024)

The table below ranks every state by the percentage growth in its population aged 65 and older between 2014 and 2024.

State Change in 65+ Population (2014–2024) Total Growth Alaska 56% 39,425 Idaho 51% 120,188 Delaware 48% 74,383 Utah 48% 140,632 Wyoming 46% 36,760 New Hampshire 45% 93,596 Colorado 44% 300,169 Nevada 44% 175,038 Montana 42% 71,509 South Carolina 42% 319,192 Georgia 41% 513,532 Texas 41% 1,265,419 Vermont 39% 41,969 Arizona 39% 420,852 Washington 38% 382,832 Maine 36% 87,850 Hawaii 36% 82,756 South Dakota 36% 46,219 North Carolina 36% 518,927 Minnesota 35% 275,897 Virginia 35% 401,357 New Mexico 35% 110,140 Florida 34% 1,294,733 Oregon 34% 214,979 Wisconsin 34% 295,892 North Dakota 34% 35,289 Maryland 33% 275,008 Rhode Island 32% 53,451 Massachusetts 31% 317,385 California 30% 1,519,339 Michigan 30% 461,738 New Jersey 30% 392,753 Louisiana 30% 187,508 New York 29% 854,478 Indiana 29% 275,051 Tennessee 29% 285,027 Connecticut 29% 159,449 Nebraska 28% 77,116 Alabama 28% 208,362 Kansas 28% 115,595 Illinois 27% 484,181 Kentucky 26% 172,658 Ohio 26% 474,302 Missouri 25% 235,408 Pennsylvania 25% 530,510 Iowa 25% 121,677 Mississippi 24% 103,194 Oklahoma 23% 129,764 District of Columbia 22% 16,219 Arkansas 21% 96,987 West Virginia 17% 57,493 🇺🇸 U.S. total 34% 14,964,188

Every state added residents aged 65 and older over the decade, but the increase ranged from 17% in West Virginia to 56% in Alaska. Nationwide, the senior population grew 34%.

Many of the fastest-growing senior populations were in the West and Sun Belt, including Idaho (+51%), Utah (+48%), and Texas (+41%). Several of these states began the period with relatively young populations and had experienced rapid population growth through domestic migration. As those residents aged, the number of people 65 and older rose quickly.

Why Alaska Leads

Alaska recorded the nation’s fastest-growing senior population despite not being a traditional retirement destination.

Much of the increase reflects longtime residents aging in place. Many people who moved to Alaska during the oil boom of the 1970s and 1980s are now entering retirement, helping drive the rapid increase in residents aged 65 and older.

Why Growth Was Slower Elsewhere

West Virginia, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia recorded the slowest growth in their senior populations.

A slower growth rate does not necessarily indicate a younger population. States such as West Virginia already had among the nation’s oldest populations in 2014, leaving less room for large percentage gains over the following decade.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the best countries to retire in.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 21:20

Mexico Bans Fracking In Key Shale Basin

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com

Mexico has ruled out fracking in a key shale basin, drawing a line through a resource-rich area even as the country looks for ways to cut its dependence on U.S. natural gas.

President Claudia Sheinbaum said hydraulic fracturing will not be allowed in the Tampico-Misantla basin beneath Veracruz and Tamaulipas. The government cited the basin’s dense population, indigenous communities and freshwater reserves.

Sheinbaum ordered a panel to examine whether unconventional gas could help reduce imports from the United States. Mexico buys more than 6.5 billion cubic feet per day of pipeline gas from its northern neighbor, covering roughly 75% of domestic demand.

The commission recommended boosting conventional gas production first. Even with the proposed measures, Mexico’s reliance on U.S. supply would fall only to about 50%, according to Sheinbaum.

Mexico would need unconventional gas to push that figure lower. The panel said future fracking should be limited to basins containing salt water rather than freshwater, leaving northern shale formations in play.

Sheinbaum campaigned as a critic of fracking and its environmental costs. Energy math has since become less cooperative. Natural gas fuels much of Mexico’s power sector and industry, while domestic production has failed to keep pace.

Seven combined-cycle power plants are coming online, with five more planned, adding to the demand for gas. Pemex expects to lift domestic production to just over 4 billion cubic feet per day by 2030, still nowhere near enough to eliminate imports.

The state oil company is also under pressure to reverse falling output while carrying a mountain of debt. Mexico holds an estimated 141.5 trillion cubic feet of unconventional gas resources, mostly in northern basins.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 20:55

"The Gift That Keeps Giving": Five Ways Republicans Benefit From Democratic Socialist Victories

Radical leftists and Islamist activists are increasingly converging inside the Democratic Party as Democratic Socialists of America, forming what can only be described as a "red-green alliance."

United by their hatred of America and capitalism, this unholy alliance of far-left radicals is drawing support from migrant voting blocs and purple-haired white liberals holding worthless woke college degrees who work three jobs. Perhaps it was not capitalism that failed those with worthless woke degrees, but the Marxists who run the educational-industrial complex known as college.

This week alone, DSA candidates expanded their influence inside the Democratic Party, intensifying far-left, anti-American rhetoric that could ultimately benefit Republicans, conservative commentator J.T. Young argues in a new opinion piece published by The Hill.

🚨 HOLY CRAP!!

The witness just exposed that Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed (D) is connected to TERRORISTS and the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD

"I look at the connections that his father-in-law, Jukaku Tayeb, has TWO brotherhood-linked groups."

"This includes being the… pic.twitter.com/soqT5TuvfD

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 5, 2026

"Democratic socialists are taking over the Democratic Party. Republicans benefit from Democrats' escalating civil war in five ways," Young wrote.

Those five advantages include:

First, regardless of outcomes, socialists confronting other Democrats in primaries splits the party. Prior to having their own candidates, Democratic Socialists of America were hostages within the party. The left-wing fringe had to support moderate Democrats, because these were the furthest left electable option. Democrats automatically got their votes without having to contend for them.

But now given different options, socialists do not have to support other Democrats in primaries. If they win primaries, more traditional Democrats may not support democratic socialists in the general election, and vice versa. In both cases, real battles are being waged across real ideological divides. Feelings are not necessarily healed after elections are over. Instead, they likely will only grow rawer.

Second, even if the two sides manage to come back together, money has been burned. The cost of these intraparty fights can be substantial — over $80 million in the Democrats' Michigan Senate primary — and the money for both sides comes out of the Democrats' limited fundraising base. The cash being burned fighting each other cannot be later used against Republicans in general elections or for close races where Democrats need an extra boost to win.

Third, if democratic socialists are nominated, they have a higher chance of losing general elections than establishment Democrats. This isn't just conjecture. While socialism polls well among Democrats, with 66 percent viewing it positively according to Gallup, it doesn't with independents at 38 percent and does terribly with Republicans at 14 percent. Democratic socialist nominees risk losing significant votes for the Democratic Party in general elections.

This doesn't mean that there aren't districts so deeply blue that Democrats still won't win; two recent victories in the New York primaries are an example. It just means that if democratic socialists are nominated, they have a greater likelihood of losing. It also means that in comparison to a conventional Democrat, the party will likely need to expend more resources to bring them to victory; this means fewer resources for other races.

Fourth, if democratic socialists win nominations, they will pull the overall Democratic delegation further left once in office. This has already happened since the Squad's entrance to Congress and the growing influence of Democrats' large Progressive Caucus. The positions these members take, and force the entire Democratic caucus to vote on, can politically endanger party regulars.

Fifth, if democratic socialists win general elections, they force establishment media to cover their extremism. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) is a case in point. She has been called out for extremism so publicly visible that the party had no choice but to push James Talarico for Texas's Senate seat. Now, Talarico is every bit as extreme as Crockett; he just isn't as well-known for it. Once they're elected, Democrats can't hide their crazy, and the media must cover it.

The repercussions from democratic socialists' increasing incursions into the Democratic Party are not mutually exclusive. More than one scenario can apply in each democratic socialist's run. And in virtually every instance, at least one of these negative scenarios applies.

Democratic socialists' collateral damage to the Democratic Party is as real as it is mounting. Their assault on the party cannot end soon enough for moderate Democrats or last long enough for Republicans. For Democratic leadership, it is a recurring nightmare; for Republicans, it is the gift that keeps on giving.

The nightmare is playing out as multiple insiders close to the Clinton family - establishment Dems - have voiced their concern that DSA is absolutely batshit insane:

• Bill Clinton Insider Warns Of Socialist Takeover, Calls For Probe Into Possible DSA Foreign Ties
• "I'm A Lifelong Democrat": Another Clinton Insider Sounds Alarm Over DSA's Far-Left Hijack Of Party

Mapping the five factions within the Democratic Party, the picture becomes clearer than ever that DSA is far left, reformist socialist.

Even more insane:

• White DSA Member Inadvertently Exposes Socialist Playbook: "Secret Nazis" Are Fine If They Advance Agenda

That's why, in their own words, they want to burn the American system and capitalism to the ground:

Much of the Marxist revolution is hiding in plain sight within the nonprofit world:

• Bombshell Report Exposes Lefty NGOs Funding A Children's Charity Tied To Terror Network
• "Americans Deserve To Know": State Dept. Report Details Cuban Espionage, Subversion, And Role In Rise Of Far Left

The DSA and its fellow Marxists have latched onto "affordability" because it is one of the most popular issues to campaign on. Marxists are parasitic and latch onto popular trends, but their goal is never to resolve the underlying problem, whether it involves affordability or stopping data centers from being built. Rather, their stated goal is to destroy the West, end imperialism, and crash capitalism.

Let's not forget DSA's unofficial spokesperson Hasan Piker has called on his followers to "kill capitalists" ... 

Hasan Piker calls on his followers to kill capitalists:

“Yeah kill them! KiII those motherfuckers and murder those motherfuckers in the streets. Let the streets soak in their fucking red capitalist blood, dude.”

Democrats are campaigning with him. pic.twitter.com/YiZxGgRkgc

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) April 9, 2026

Piker again...

Hasan declares his love for a far right Islamic terrorist organization known for their execution of gay men in front of his openly gay co host, during pride month too lmaoooo

Vibe terrorist pic.twitter.com/5gmpks5E7k

— Cactus (@antenacactus) June 3, 2025

The White House has gotten the memo:

Communism is the greatest threat to our country.

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) August 5, 2026

The State Department as well:

🚨 JUST IN: Marco Rubio is throwing Democrats into a frenzy by dropping this truth nuke that terrorism is COMING FROM THE LEFT

"In all-out assault on our immigration officers, sniper attacks, explosives, armed ambushes, a transgender shooter opening fire on Catholic elementary… pic.twitter.com/jENXMAqe1U

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 16, 2026

What comes next, ahead of the midterms, is the Trump administration ramping up anti-communist propaganda. A majority of Americans still favor capitalism. We suspect the Red Scare is back.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 20:30

The Financial Consequences Of 'Gray' Divorce

Authored by Anne Johnson via The Epoch Times,

Gray divorce refers to divorce among adults ages 50 and over. And although divorce among younger adults has been declining over the past 15 years, according to Pew Research, gray divorce is on the rise.

Gray divorce is becoming more common, and its financial impact can last well into retirement. New Africa/shutterstock

Although any divorce can be financially difficult, gray divorce is especially hard on retirement because it halves accumulated savings. It can also double living expenses by creating two separate households. The danger of a gray divorce is that, unlike a divorce in your 30s where you have time to make up for the financial loss, there is little time left in your 50s or 60s to rebuild wealth.

Prevalence of Gray Divorce

According to a study published in The Journals of Gerontology by Susan L. Brown, the gray divorce rate was low and grew only modestly between 1970 and 1990 before doubling by 2010.

The study found that, although the divorce rate has stagnated among middle-aged adults, it continues to climb among older adults.

In 2022, 36 percent of U.S. adults who divorced were aged 50 or older. The only group with an increasing divorce rate was found to be adults aged 65 and older.

According to Barnes Family Law, divorce among couples 65 and older has tripled since 1990 and is expected to grow by another one-third by 2030.

Financial Fallout From Gray Divorce

The longer the marriage, the more assets you share with your spouse. Finances are intermingled. And now, depending on your state's laws, retirement savings, homes, and other assets will need to be split. Both men and women experience roughly a 50 percent drop in wealth, according to a 2022 study published in Innovation in Aging titled "The Economic Consequences of Gray Divorce for Women and Men."

The study also found that women experienced a 45 percent decline in their standard of living, whereas men's standard of living dropped by 21 percent.

Beyond just splitting assets, the cost of divorce because of legal proceedings can affect your monthly budget or retirement plans.

According to The Law Offices of David M. Moore, the average divorce in the United States costs between $15,000 and $20,000. But this figure can actually run from a few hundred dollars for an amicable divorce to over $100,000 in a high-conflict high-asset divorce.

Dividing Assets Over 50

If you and your spouse can't agree on how to divide assets, a judge will decide following the law of the state.

Most judges use a system called equitable distribution, splitting all assets, earnings, debts, and property as they deem fair, according to Edelman Financial Engines. The length of marriage may also be a consideration. However, nine states follow community property laws. In these states, community property is typically divided 50-50, and each spouse keeps his or her separate property.

Retirement Accounts Divided Through QDRO

According to The Pension Rights Center, retirement plans like 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, and pension plans typically must be divided through a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).

A QDRO is a legal instrument that grants a person the right to a portion of the retirement benefits that person's former spouse has earned through a private sector employer-sponsored retirement plan.

Without a QDRO to divide these benefits, people going through divorce may lose their rights to a share of those benefits and put themselves at risk for financial insecurity at retirement.

It's important to hire an attorney who understands that retirement assets are at stake and that a QDRO is needed.

The court must be notified to ensure the former spouse provides all the information the court needs.

According to the IRS, most plans require you to file a QDRO with the plan administrator before the plan can pay any portion of a participant's retirement benefits to an ex-spouse.

Life Insurance for Dependents and Alimony

Life insurance may also be subject to division in a divorce. This is especially true if there is a cash value since this may be considered a marital asset.

According to Edelman Financial Engines, many divorce settlements require holding life insurance to protect child support and alimony payments.

Regardless, ensure you update your beneficiary for all life insurance policies.

Post-Divorce Retirement Planning

It's important to prepare a financial plan and budget to help guide you through your divorce. You'll want to review monthly bank and financial statements and make copies for your attorney.

Taxes are often overlooked. Ensure you consult an accountant or tax attorney. If you are paying or receiving alimony, discuss this with an accountant. According to Intuit Turbotax, when you started collecting alimony determines any taxation.

According to the Social Security Administration, if you've been married more than 10 years and have divorced, you're generally entitled to half of your spouse's Social Security, provided the benefit is greater than what you qualify for. You must be 62 or older, and if you file before your full retirement age, you'll receive a reduced Social Security benefit.

Anne Johnson was a commercial property and casualty insurance agent for nine years. She was also licensed in health and life insurance. She went on to own an advertising agency, where she worked with businesses. She has been writing about personal finance for 10 years.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 20:05

These Are The States With The Most Empty Homes

America faces a housing shortage, yet about 14.5 million homes across the country are vacant. How can both be true?

Using the latest U.S. Census Bureau data compiled by LendingTree, Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld created this map showing the share of vacant housing units in every state.

The figures include vacation homes, rentals awaiting tenants, homes for sale, and other unoccupied properties, not just abandoned buildings.

Which States Have the Highest Vacancy Rates?

About one in 10 U.S. housing units is vacant, but most are not permanently sitting unused.

Nearly 4.7 million vacant units are seasonal or recreational homes, 2.6 million are available for rent, and fewer than 800,000 are actively listed for sale. This helps explain why states with large vacation-home markets, including Maine, Vermont, Florida, and Hawaii, record some of the nation’s highest vacancy rates.

Rank State Vacancy Rate 2024 Vacant Housing Units 1 Maine 20.6% 154,717 2 Vermont 19.4% 65,626 3 Alaska 17.6% 57,958 4 West Virginia 15.4% 132,670 5 Florida 14.7% 1,503,660 6 Mississippi 14.6% 195,683 7 Alabama 14.5% 340,018 8 Louisiana 14.4% 304,122 9 New Hampshire 14.3% 92,650 10 Arkansas 13.5% 188,686 11 Delaware 13.4% 62,165 12 Hawaii 13.3% 75,443 13 South Carolina 13.3% 325,050 14 Montana 13.2% 69,560 15 New Mexico 12.5% 119,550 16 North Carolina 12.5% 613,323 17 North Dakota 12.3% 46,218 18 Wyoming 12.2% 33,823 19 Oklahoma 12.0% 212,738 20 Michigan 11.8% 545,867 21 Missouri 11.2% 317,060 22 Wisconsin 10.8% 299,092 23 Arizona 10.5% 336,758 24 South Dakota 10.5% 43,040 25 Georgia 10.3% 467,469 26 Idaho 10.3% 82,009 27 Kentucky 10.3% 208,647 28 Tennessee 10.2% 319,393 29 District of Columbia 10.1% 36,523 30 New York 10.0% 862,595 31 Texas 9.4% 1,135,699 32 Minnesota 9.3% 237,075 33 Nevada 9.3% 123,878 34 Kansas 9.2% 119,575 35 Pennsylvania 9.2% 531,599 36 Rhode Island 9.1% 44,362 37 Indiana 8.8% 260,559 38 Virginia 8.7% 319,024 39 Iowa 8.5% 121,992 40 Colorado 8.3% 214,835 41 Massachusetts 8.1% 245,364 42 Ohio 8.1% 429,200 43 Utah 8.1% 98,646 44 Illinois 7.7% 421,003 45 Maryland 7.7% 197,856 46 Nebraska 7.6% 65,597 47 California 7.5% 1,096,644 48 New Jersey 7.5% 283,653 49 Oregon 7.5% 139,570 50 Washington 7.3% 241,800 51 Connecticut 7.0% 107,815 -- 🇺🇸 U.S. total 10.1% 14,547,859

Maine leads the country with a vacancy rate of 20.6%, followed by Vermont at 19.4% and Alaska at 17.6%. At the other end of the ranking, Washington and Connecticut have rates of around 7%, while California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts also sit near the bottom.

In these states, available housing is often absorbed quickly, leaving fewer homes unoccupied. A low vacancy rate can therefore reflect strong demand, not necessarily a healthier or more affordable housing market.

Why Empty Homes Won’t Solve the Housing Crisis

At first glance, millions of vacant homes may appear sufficient to ease America’s housing shortage. In practice, many are not available to year-round buyers or renters.

Some are second homes or seasonal properties concentrated in vacation destinations, while others are temporarily vacant between tenants or owners. High vacancy rates and housing shortages can therefore exist at the same time, particularly in expensive metropolitan areas where year-round housing remains scarce.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the salary needed to afford rent across America.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 19:40

Voter Files In Arizona's Largest County Illegally Obtained In 2020, Records Show

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Voter files in Maricopa County, Arizona, were obtained illegally before the 2020 presidential election, according to records released on Aug. 6 by the White House.

Authorities discovered that 633,000 voter files had been exfiltrated from the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office just before the election, according to logs from the U.S. intelligence community and other documents.

The voter files contained information such as people’s names, birth dates, and addresses.

About 930 of them included information on people such as domestic violence victims, judges, and law enforcement officers.

The files were illegally extracted from the office, the FBI said in a document opening an investigation.

The bureau identified a suspect, who admitted to the crime, according to a document summarizing an interview agents conducted with the man.

The man, who has not been publicly named, used to work for a city whose name was redacted in the FBI file.

He went on to work for himself, fixing computers and removing viruses from machines.

In 2020, he discovered a vulnerability on the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office website while registering to vote.

The man developed a program to obtain voter files from the website and ended up extracting between 1 million and 2 million files to his personal hard drives and an online account, he told investigators.

The man said he did not intend to sell the information.

After he “realized the gravity of the situation,” he “became scared” and knew he would be visited by law enforcement, according to the interview summary.

The man told officials that he destroyed the files shortly before the FBI raided his house in Fountain Hills in November 2020.

The man said he regretted what he did and knew he had to deal with consequences for his actions.

The FBI “spent significant resources solving this cybercrime,” FBI Director Kash Patel said in a statement, but prosecutors in Arizona declined to prosecute the man. He has never been charged.

There’s no evidence that any votes were changed in association with the incident, John Solomon, chairman of the White House Government Transparency Task Force, told reporters on a call.

The Maricopa County Recorder’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 19:15

Watch: Mamdani Booed Off Stage At Pro-Police Event As 9/11 Backlash Builds

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani got a blistering welcome from Staten Islanders Tuesday night, drowned out by a wall of boos that chased the self-avowed Democratic socialist off the stage in under a minute at a National Night Out Against Crime event.

Mamdani had come to Midland Beach to address thousands gathered for the NYPD's 43rd annual National Night Out Against Crime, an event built around strengthening the bond between police officers and the neighborhoods they protect--however--it did not go as planned.

Videos rocketing around social media showed the crowd jeering as the mayor stepped toward the podium, with attendees shouting at Mamdani to leave and others flashing thumbs-down gestures in the borough long considered the city's most conservative.

“It’s a pleasure to be here, I want to say thank you …” Mamdani began amid loud and lusty boos and a barrage of insults such as “you suck!”

The mayor kept smiling through it.

"Happy Night Out Against Crime. It's amazing to be here for the Staten Island community," Mamdani said, thanking local officials and Staten Island artist Scott LoBaido before wrapping up with, "God bless everyone. Thank you."

The whole appearance clocked in at less than a minute before the mayor walked off. Local reports said Mamdani later stopped to pose for photos with some attendees, hostile reception notwithstanding.

The Staten Island rebuke comes as thousands are protesting Mamdani's presence at 9/11 memorial events. Among those protesting the mayor is Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman vowing to turn his back on Mamdani if the mayor shows up.

"I would equate this to a wake. You don't go to a wake if you're not welcome," Blakeman told reporters, according to the New York Post. 

"I think it's completely appropriate if family members ask him not to come, but if he does come I think there's a respectful and peaceful way to protest that and I would suggest that people turn their back on the mayor," Blakeman said. 

"He's not welcome there because he has yet to say anything in opposition to the global intifada. As a matter of fact it seems like he supports that phrase which is part of the reason why we had the tragedy we had on 9/11."

Staten Island is the most conservative borough in New York City, although it maintains a higher number of registered Democrats than Republicans. As of February 2024, 39.72 percent of registered voters were Democrats compared to 31.46 percent who vote Republican.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 18:50

US Intelligence Assets Said To Descend On Cuba

Authored by John Weeks via News.Anti-War.com,

Writing in POLITICO on Tuesday, Dasha Burns and Nahal Toosi reported that in recent months the US intelligence community has “sent spies and assets” to Cuba. Specifically, they reported the CIA has increased its presence on the island, which sits approximately 90 miles south of Florida.   

Burns and Toosi based their reporting on interviews with “two people familiar with the Trump administration’s plans for the island,” who were left anonymous due to the “sensitive” nature of the information they provided. The authors said the CIA, White House, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence all declined requests for comment.

The report claimed the Trump Administration does not believe it has to resolve the war with Iran before taking military action in Cuba and that the Cuban issue is a “huge priority” of Secretary of State and Acting National Security Advisor Marco Rubio.

The cityscape of Havana, as Cuba scrambles to reconnect its national electrical grid following a nationwide blackout, in Havana, Cuba August 4, 2026. REUTERS/Norlys Perez

While the accuracy of the inside information cannot be verified, nor whether its status is official or unauthorized, the claims are consistent with recent rhetoric and actions of the Trump administration, and the US did reportedly take similar action before the January 3 attack on Venezuela to abduct President Nicolas Maduro.

Rubio, who is of Cuban descent, has been very hands-on regarding Western Hemisphere geopolitics. After the attack on Venezuela, Trump vowed the US would be “running” the country for an indefinite transition period, and Rubio was given that brief within the administration. By all accounts, he is eager to add running Cuba to his area of responsibilities and not optimistic about diplomacy.  

On July 20, his State Department published “Cuba: The Capital of 21st Century Communism.” The nearly 100-page report described the Cuban state as “the center of a vast hemispheric network” intent on destroying the United States and collapsing Western Civilization.

The report depicted the small island nation as a subversive proxy of Russia, China, and Iran, as well as the true power behind several American leftist movements, including Antifa, Code Pink, and Black Lives Matter. It was part of a pattern of the US setting up pretexts for a potential attack on Cuba.

Government officials, from President Donald Trump on down, have described Cuba as a national security threat to the United States and the entire Western Hemisphere.

Washington has engaged in more than rhetoric. In June, massive sanctions were placed on Cuba that are forecast to create a “severe economic crisis.” Under the sanctions regime and a ramped-up oil embargo imposed after the attack on Venezuela, Cuba’s electrical infrastructure and healthcare system have collapsed, causing a major humanitarian crisis.

While crushing Cuba’s economy, Washington has also been sending aid to Cuban citizens run through nongovernmental organizations.

On July 21, the State Department announced “the first flight of humanitarian relief under Secretary Rubio’s historic commitment of $100 million in humanitarian assistance to the Cuban people, who are suffering from the consequences of the Communist regime’s kleptocracy, brutality, and economic incompetence.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 18:25

Investigators Unveil Charges Against Dismissed Ukrainian Ambassador To The US

Another top level Ukrainian official has been booted from office over significant corruption allegations, which comes at a moment of a broad shake-up of military and cabinet leadership initiated by President Zelensky.

Olha Stefanishyna was dismissed as Ukraine's ambassador to the United States earlier this week, both local media as as Reuters have confirmed.

via Associated Press

Reuters writes that she is "suspected of illegal enrichment and failing to declare assets, authorities said on Thursday, the latest high-ranking official targeted in an anti-graft probe" - after she reportedly hid two apartments along with other assets worth about $310,000.

She had been a deputy prime minister prior to being appointed top diplomatic representative to Washington, and it's believed that her concealed assets could not have been obtained with her official salary alone. She had also briefly served as Minister of Justice during the war with Russia.

Much of her additional properties and other assets were registered under the names of Stefanishyna's friends and family members. Kyiv Post reports Thursday:

The High Anti-Corruption Court on Aug. 6 set Hr 6 million ($130,000) bail for Olha Stefanishyna, Ukraine's former ambassador to the U.S., in a corruption case.

She has been charged with illicit enrichment amounting to Hr 13.9 million ($310,000) and lying in her asset declarations. An anti-corruption prosecutor earlier proposed setting bail for Stefanishyna at Hr 13 million ($290,000).

Stefanishyna failed to declare two apartments, worth nearly Hr 11 million ($250,000), that were registered in the name of a friend, according to the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU).

She has in the meantime taken to social media to declare there's been no wrongdoing that she doesn't have anything to hide. But she voluntarily submitted her resignation earlier this week, upon which Zelensky dismissed her.

According to a newly published list of the undeclared assets, she tried to 'hide' the following:

• Two apartments in a residential complex in western Kiev, registered to a friend
• A luxury apartment in central Kiev, registered to her mother
• A parking space and several auxiliary premises at the same high-end property, registered to her father
• A Mercedes-Benz GLC 220 d, registered to a subordinate

"Any procedural actions are part of the lawful work of the law enforcement system and do not amount to a finding of guilt," she wrote on Facebook. "I take these developments calmly and without unnecessary emotion."

‼️BREAKING Ukrainian court sets ₴6 million (~$130,000) bail for Olha Stefanishyna, former Ambassador of Ukraine to the United States.
She is suspected of illicit enrichment and false asset declarations. Prosecutors had requested more than twice that amount. pic.twitter.com/5cnwBsruUG

— EMPR.media (@EuromaidanPR) August 6, 2026

Stefanishyna had served as ambassador to the US for the past year, going back to August of 2025. Local media says the alleged concealing of assets took place during that stint, and reports additionally say she was in the process of buying another property - an apartment valued at the equivalent of $550,000 - but backed out of the deal.

Broadly, the Ukrainian population has suffered immensely amid the conflict with Russia, with frequent blackouts and amid a battered wartime economy - and so ordinary citizens get increasingly frustrated and outraged when they see government officials living lavish lifestyles which include luxury cars and multiple homes and properties.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 18:00

US Immigration Agency Asks Public To Report Fraud, Anti-Government Activities

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The federal agency that processes green cards, U.S. citizenship requests, and work permits this week called on people to report potential cases of immigration fraud through a newly created portal.

In an Aug. 4 post on X, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) wrote that anyone who suspects “immigration fraud, criminal activity, or actions by aliens that threaten national security or public safety” can report it to the agency, a branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

“Reports should involve aliens suspected of fraud, unlawful acts, threats, violence, terrorism-related activity, or other conduct connected to immigration,” the agency said.

On Wednesday, it called on anyone who notices or suspects non-U.S. citizens are “committing immigration fraud of any kind, making false claims of U.S. citizenship, or advocating violence or terrorism against America” to report tips.

It then directed the public to a website, titled “Protect America Together,” which allows the public to submit details of suspected fraudulent activity. That can include noncitizens using fake or altered documents, as well as identity, marriage, visa, employment, and asylum fraud.

Tipsters can also submit reports of suspected fraud and abuse within the H-1B visa program, which has been used by companies to employ Big Tech workers for decades, and within the EB-5 immigrant investor visa program.

“Falsely claiming U.S. citizenship, including registering or voting in a federal election” can also be reported using the website, it said.

Other activities that can be reported include noncitizens “supporting terrorist ideologies or providing material support to terrorist organization,” “advocating for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government,” “expressing hatred for American values,” working with groups or individuals who are seeking to disrupt public safety or national security, or “engaging in activities that violate the principles of the Constitution or show disloyalty to the United States.”

A spokesperson for DHS told The Epoch Times on Wednesday evening that the website is a new push from USCIS.

“A single tip can help protect the United States from immigration fraud that exploits the American people and undermines America’s legal immigration system,” the spokesperson said.

Immigrants await their turn for green card and citizenship interviews at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Queens office in the Long Island City neighborhood of New York City on May 30, 2013. John Moore/Getty Images

When submitting details to the web portal, USCIS directs tipsters to include as many details as they can, including a name, date of birth, or address.

It also directs users to provide information about themselves, including their names, emails, and phone numbers. The reporting form allows for either businesses and companies or individuals to be reported.

According to the agency, users will soon be able to upload screenshots as they report tips to USCIS.

Since President Donald Trump took office last year, his administration has made mass deportations and enforcing laws against illegal immigration a priority. His administration has also moved to tighten legal immigration rules and suspend certain temporary deportation protection programs for certain countries.

The administration has also moved to denaturalize U.S. citizens such as those who were convicted of crimes including sexual abuse of a child, healthcare fraud, and immigration fraud, among other charges.

USCIS did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 17:40

DeepSeek Resumes $74BN Mega-Raise - Then Warns It's Jacking-Up Prices

Chinese AI startup DeepSeek is looking to raise roughly 50 billion yuan at a valuation of 500 billion yuan (US$74 billion) - while the company warned developers a day later that it's raising prices. The resumed funding round, first reported by Chinese business outlet Caijing (via The Standard), is expected to be signed by the end of the month, with the process kept deliberately quiet; some participating institutions reportedly haven't even been formally told the deal is back on. The pricing notice, posted Thursday to DeepSeek's developer platform, warns that API rates will rise across the board and that the increase is expected to be "significant."

Image:  Mojahid Mottakin - stock.adobe.com 

The round restarts barely two weeks after it was shelved, and roughly six weeks after DeepSeek's first-ever external raise in June, which pulled in some $7.4 billion from Tencent, CATL, Beijing's National AI Industry Investment Fund, NetEase, JD.com, Monolith Management and IDG Capital at a valuation north of $50 billion (corporate filings later implied a figure closer to $52 billion). The new target is a steep markup on a deal that closed weeks ago, and the prospective investor list reportedly blends returning backers with new money that couldn't get into round one.

As we noted last month, the round stalled because a transcript of founder Liang Wenfeng's May 20 closed-door meeting with investors leaked onto GitHub and went viral - a document in which Liang admitted China still trails the US in AI (a gap of compute and capital, not talent, per Liang), conceded DeepSeek remains heavily dependent on Nvidia hardware, described Huawei's substitutes as falling well short, and acknowledged the company could get its hands on processors he called "noncompliant." 

Liang - reportedly furious over the leak - simply froze the deal.

Meanwhile, questions about how DeepSeek is obtaining restricted silicon go back to the very beginning - with federal investigators probing whether Singapore-based third parties funneled blacklisted Nvidia chips to the lab as far back as early 2025, and by that April the House Select Committee on the CCP had formally concluded that DeepSeek's model appeared to run on tens of thousands of export-restricted Nvidia chips, branding the company a tool for "subverting" US export controls. Congress alleged it and now the founder has all but confirmed it, on (leaked) record telling investors the workaround exists - even as the company lays groundwork for a Shanghai STAR Market IPO it reportedly hopes to file this year. Should be a fun prospectus to read. 

Liang was able to hit the pause button so easily because DeepSeek's first round routed nearly every investor's money into a limited partnership Liang personally controls, complete with a five-year lock-up and zero voting rights. The lone exception was the state AI fund, which bought direct equity and kept its vote. Liang holds roughly 84% of the company and near-total voting control - meaning Tencent and CATL wired in billions for the privilege of watching, while Beijing holds the only outside seat at the table.

In the leaked transcript, he told investors that GPUs are the single best use of the company's capital, that he would happily convert the entire war chest into Nvidia hardware if supply allowed, and that spending 20 billion yuan a year on processors would count as a triumph for his purchasing team. He also told them the money doesn't go as far as it looks: even 50 billion yuan, he said, wouldn't train a model at the scale of the largest U.S. systems, which he estimated would take roughly 50,000 Nvidia GB300s or 200,000 Huawei Ascend 950s - before the experiments that precede any final training run. Beyond the hardware, the company plans to double headcount and push into data centers and AI agents, and Reuters reports it is quietly hiring chip designers to develop in-house inference silicon - an attempt to engineer its way out of the very dependence Liang lamented.

Price Hike

Which brings us to the other shoe - the company's announcement that API rates will rise across the board in a "significant" way - the company's second hike in under a month, following a "peak/off-peak" scheme TechNode reported in mid-July, which doubled rates during Chinese business hours.

No new rate card or effective date has been published - but this is the lab whose $0.14-per-million-token pricing dragged ByteDance, Tencent, and lately even the US majors into a price war. Demand has reportedly overwhelmed its infrastructure, and bargain-basement tokens are a hard pitch to pre-IPO investors. The catch: DeepSeek's weights are open, so any datacenter on earth can serve the same models. If they raise prices too far, customers may balk.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 17:20

DoorDash Wins Federal Approval To Fly Its Own Delivery Drones

Via American Greatness,

DoorDash has cleared a major federal hurdle in its push to put drones, not just drivers, in charge of getting dinner to your door.

The San Francisco-based delivery company announced July 29 that it received Federal Aviation Administration Part 135 air carrier certification, the same category of authorization commercial airlines must hold to legally transport other people’s property for pay. The certificate makes DoorDash the eighth drone operator to earn the designation and clears the way for its new in-house operation, DoorDash Air, to begin building a commercial drone delivery network in the United States.

The achievement did not come easily. Federal regulators put DoorDash through a five-phase review examining its aircraft, maintenance procedures and safety program before signing off. That kind of vetting is worth noting at a time when many Americans question whether Washington bureaucracies move too slowly to keep pace with private-sector innovation

DoorDash says the drone will be designed and built in the United States, with most of its components sourced domestically as well. Building the aircraft at home, rather than relying on foreign-made hardware, keeps DoorDash in step with a growing national push to reduce reliance on Chinese technology in critical infrastructure.

The company says the drones fix a real inefficiency. More than 20 percent of DoorDash orders in 2025 traveled between three and five miles, and those trips took nearly a quarter longer than shorter deliveries, largely because drivers prefer clusters of short trips near busy restaurants over a single long haul. DoorDash estimates its existing drone pilots completed deliveries in about 25 minutes on average and saw order volume climb roughly 30 percent in some locations. Those figures come from the company itself and have not been independently verified.

Human Dashers are not going anywhere. DoorDash says drivers will keep handling the overwhelming majority of deliveries, since a drone cannot climb an apartment stairwell or haul a large catering order. The company’s Autonomous Delivery Platform will instead assign each order to whichever method, a Dasher, a delivery robot or a drone, makes the most sense.

Federal certification does not mean drones will appear over American neighborhoods anytime soon. DoorDash still needs airspace authorization and likely additional waivers for flights beyond a pilot’s direct line of sight, and it has not announced its first markets or a launch date. Local zoning boards, noise concerns and community pushback could shape where the company is ultimately allowed to operate, regardless of what Washington has approved.

Still, DoorDash’s milestone reflects a private company willing to invest in American manufacturing and clear federal hurdles rather than wait for government to hand it a shortcut.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 17:00

Japan Marks Hiroshima Anniversary Without Naming US, While Shaming Russia

Russia is not happy with Japan's statements regarding the anniversary of the US military's dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima at the end of WWII. Thursday marks the 81st anniversary of the bombing which obliterated the densely-populated industrial city.

The Kremlin is accusing Japanese officials of intentionally dropping any mention of just who dropped the nuke which ultimately killed some 140,000 people, the vast majority of them civilians.

The city's mayor Kazumi Matsui at a ceremony held at the center of where the blast happened issued strong condemnation of nuclear weapons generally, but failed to identify that it was the United States behind it.

Tokyo and Washington have in recent years deepened their security ties, with an eye on China, and so Japanese leaders have long sought to avoid offending their powerful patron and ally. 

Astoundingly, not only did Mayor Matsui fail to mention the US and the B-29 Superfortress 'Enola Gay' bomber that actually dropped the bomb, a simple historical reality, but he went out of his way to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine in his Thursday speech.

The speech focused on the "inhumanity of nuclear weapons" and how "use of force to pursue one's own prosperity" must be condemned and abolished, but then he gratuitously invoked Russia while giving the stories of survivors who have since suffered debilitating illnesses:

Another woman, exposed to the bomb at age 3, suffered through the years from a series of illnesses, then leukemia at age 55. Having been diagnosed with A-bomb disease, she lived in constant fear. Where would it strike next?

A man who was 9, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which has claimed the lives of many civilians, begs us to overcome our internal conflicts and embrace each other's perspectives to build a world without violent conflict. He urges our youth, in particular, to begin by thinking deeply about their daily lives.

Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was in attendance at the ceremony, a first since entering office, and she too failed to identify the US as the country which dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese people. She merely called for "realistic and practical" efforts toward a world without nuclear weapons. Top officials from dozens of countries were present, including from Russia, the US, and Iran.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova was quick to highlight the glaring omission in statements to the press later the same day.

On the atomic bombing's anniversary, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova noted that Hiroshima's Mayor failed to specify the United States as responsible for the city's destruction through the atomic bomb that killed civilians. pic.twitter.com/wdyN6ecIoP

— HatsOff (@HatsOffff) August 6, 2026

"On the anniversary of the atomic bombing, Hiroshima's mayor once again failed to mention the country responsible for the suffering of his city — the United States. Instead, he used the occasion to attack Russia over Ukraine," Zakharova said.

"The crooked mirror of Western narratives distorts not only the reflection but also the consciousness of those who look into it," she stressed.

She went to point out that the mayor "repeats this false mantra year after year, zombifying the Japanese with Russophobic incantations" - and noted that Russia has always remembered the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and appropriately presents the tragedy as an example of "unacceptable cruelty" by American forces. 

"Amid the suffering caused by Japanese aggression in the Far East, our people never forgot the victims of those two cities," she concluded.

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi speaks during a memorial at the Peace Memorial Ceremony, via VCG

Russia's TASS is busy highlighting the fact that the UN Chief, who addressed the ceremony too, also failed to so much as mention the United States:

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres once again did not mention that the United States was the country that carried out the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in his message marking its 81st anniversary.

UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Izumi Nakamitsu traditionally read out the message.

The report went on: "In previous years, Guterres also never directly named the United States as the country that carried out the atomic bombings in similar messages commemorating the anniversaries of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 16:40

The COVID Lockdowns Gave America A Glimpse Of Socialism

Authored by Mark Gianniny via RealClearMarkets,

The next time a candidate promises that greater government control will make life safer, fairer and more secure, Americans should remember 2020. They should remember the closed schools, shuttered businesses, restricted churches, isolated families, arbitrary mandates and government checks intended to compensate people for livelihoods government had interrupted.

COVID was not socialism in the strict textbook sense. Government did not nationalize most businesses or formally abolish private property. But the pandemic gave Americans a revealing glimpse of the governing instinct behind socialism: Central authorities replaced millions of individual decisions with government orders, restricted private activity in the name of the collective good and made citizens dependent on public assistance to endure the restrictions government itself imposed.

During the frightening opening weeks, temporary precautions were understandable. We faced an unfamiliar virus, hospitals feared being overwhelmed and officials had limited information. Most Americans accepted extraordinary restrictions because they were told the measures were necessary and temporary.

The problem was how quickly temporary precautions became a system of control and how slowly government surrendered that control.

Officials decided who could work and which businesses were "essential." They determined whether children could enter their classrooms, congregations could enter their churches and families could visit elderly relatives. Restaurants, gyms, salons, theaters and neighborhood stores were closed or severely restricted. Weddings, funerals, worship services and private gatherings were regulated by executive order.

To a governor or public-health official, a restaurant or gym might have appeared nonessential. To its owner, it was income, retirement savings, personal identity and perhaps a business intended for the next generation. There was nothing nonessential about it.

Private ownership means less when government decides whether the owner may open the doors, employ workers or serve customers. The deed may remain in private hands, but practical control has shifted to the state.

The same pattern reached schools. Parents did not individually decide whether remote instruction was best for their children. Government agencies, teachers unions and school systems made that decision for them. Students and families bore the consequences through lost learning, social isolation and enormous strain on working parents.

Government also intruded on religious worship. Churches, synagogues and mosques were closed or severely restricted, sometimes while liquor stores and large retailers remained open. Americans were told when they could worship, how many could attend and even whether they could sing.

The First Amendment does not say religious liberty applies only when public officials consider it convenient. Yet during COVID, constitutional freedoms were treated as privileges that government could suspend and later restore.

Many rules imposed under the banner of science were actually emergency judgments supported by limited evidence. The six-foot distancing rule reduced business capacity and complicated school reopenings, yet Anthony Fauci later said he could not recall how that exact distance had been selected. It "sort of just appeared."

Masking policies often showed the same lack of discrimination, treating crowded indoor settings much like solitary outdoor activity. California authorities even pursued and arrested a lone paddleboarder during a beach closure. Such episodes revealed what happens when officials become so certain of their authority that questioning a rule is treated as rejecting science.

Public-health experts were qualified to explain medical risks. They were not uniquely qualified to decide how much education, economic independence, religious liberty and personal freedom should be sacrificed. Those were political and moral decisions that belonged to elected representatives and the public.

Yet "following the science" became a way to avoid that debate. Science could help estimate the risk of infection. It could not decide whether a child should lose a year in the classroom, whether a family business should be destroyed or whether a dying person should be separated from loved ones.

Those decisions required balancing competing risks and values. Instead, one objective, reducing the spread of the virus, was often allowed to overwhelm nearly every other consideration.

The economic response reinforced the same pattern of centralized control.

Government restricted private commerce and prevented millions of people from earning income. It then stepped in with forgivable loans, enhanced unemployment benefits, stimulus checks and other assistance.

Some support was necessary. Government could not prevent people from working and then simply abandon them. But the arrangement exposed the deeper danger: Government first displaced private economic activity and then made citizens and businesses dependent on public money to survive the restrictions it had imposed.

That is the governing instinct behind socialism. Decisions move away from individuals, employers and markets and toward political officials who determine which activities may continue, who qualifies for assistance and how resources will be distributed.

The government that closed the business became the government offering to save it. The government that interrupted the paycheck became the government mailing the check. Dependence was not an accidental side effect of the restrictions. It was their predictable result.

Socialism is commonly sold as a promise of security. Government will protect people from illness, unemployment, high prices, inadequate housing and economic uncertainty. But protection requires authority. The more responsibility citizens surrender to the state, the more power the state claims to direct their choices.

COVID gave Americans a practical demonstration of that bargain. Officials promised safety and claimed the authority to regulate work, education, worship, travel, medical decisions and private gatherings. Every restriction was described as temporary, necessary and imposed for the common good.

That is how centralized control usually advances. It does not arrive by announcing that freedom is being abolished. It arrives through promises of safety, fairness, expertise and temporary necessity. Each expansion appears reasonable when viewed alone. Together, they transfer control of everyday life from citizens to the state.

This was not solely a Democratic failure. Officials in both parties expanded government power during COVID, which is precisely why the danger is larger than any one party or politician.

The lesson is especially important today because democratic socialism is gaining influence within the Democratic Party. The Democratic Socialists of America is not formally the Democratic Party, but its candidates generally seek office through Democratic primaries, and several have defeated incumbent Democrats.

The movement is candid about its objectives. Its constitution calls for "popular control of resources and production" and "economic planning." Its national endorsement standards expect candidates to identify publicly as socialists, support the organization's platform and view themselves as socialist organizers first and legislators second.

Americans should take those declarations seriously. COVID showed what centralized direction can look like before government formally owns private property. Officials may leave the deed in an owner's hands while deciding whether the business may open, whom it may employ and whom it may serve. They may leave churches and schools nominally independent while determining whether people may enter them.

Not every Democrat is a socialist, and not every government program is socialism. But a movement seeking to transfer more economic and personal decisions from individuals, families, businesses and communities to government is no longer operating only at the political margins. It is winning elections and attempting to reshape one of America's two major parties.

The Constitution was designed because the Founders understood that concentrated power, even when accumulated for supposedly benevolent purposes, threatens liberty. Separation of powers, federalism, property rights, religious freedom and due process are not outdated obstacles preventing government from helping people. They are protections against officials who are certain they know what is best for everyone else.

Liberty is more than the freedom to do what government experts recommend. It includes the right to operate a lawful business, educate one's children, worship, own property, question authority and accept reasonable risks without first obtaining government permission.

Socialism promises security through collective action and centralized direction. The pandemic revealed the other side of that bargain: A government that assumes responsibility for protecting every part of life will eventually claim the authority to control every part of life.

Today, candidates are again promising that greater government control will make life safer, fairer and more secure. Before accepting that promise, Americans should remember 2020.

They should remember who was permitted to work, which businesses were declared essential, whether children could enter their classrooms, whether congregations could enter their churches and whether families could visit their loved ones.

They should remember how private independence was replaced by government permission and public assistance.

Above all, they should remember the lesson of 2020: Government power surrendered during an emergency is easily expanded, rarely exercised with humility and never returned as quickly as promised. Liberty is safest when citizens refuse to surrender it in the first place.

Mark Gianniny is a real estate developer and property manager in Rochester, NY.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 16:20

Senate Panel Holds Fauci In Contempt For Refusing To Answer Questions

Anthony Fauci has been held in contempt of Congress by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, after he repeatedly refused to answer lawmakers' questions about funding risky research to genetically manipulate bat coronavirus in Wuhan China, and his role in the ensuing lockdown quagmire that cratered the economy after he was put in charge of leading the COVID-19 response. 

Oh, and they obtained a copy of his cell phone. 

In an 8-5 vote brought by Committee Chairman Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), the contempt vote seeks to refer the case directly to the DOJ for prosecution - bypassing a full vote from the Senate. 

"Seeking the truth is not a witch hunt," Paul said be fore the vote, per the WSJ. "Accountability is not vengeance. Accountability is what stands between the American people and a repeat of the mistakes and the very real consequences of the past." 

The Committee's top Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters, called the investigation "one-sided from the beginning," claiming that "Information has been selectively released to support conclusions that the chairman reached years ago." 

The minority keeps trying to hijack the Fauci hearings with the lie that we haven’t shared the records from this investigation with them. This is a cop-out lie. This has been an intentionally open and transparent investigation. Not one Democrat on the committee cared enough to… pic.twitter.com/hHGtQDV5Ez

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) August 6, 2026

Which of course is complete bullshit. Fauci funded the research, botched the response after COVID-19 broke out, lied about it under oath, and then pleaded the 5th when receipts came out.  

WATCH: Democrats across the board vote to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci. pic.twitter.com/y9xm1mFDbc

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) August 6, 2026 Committee Chairman Rand Paul, R-Ky., questions Fauci on Wednesday.Anna Moneymaker / Getty Images

Or, as Paul wrote prior to the vote: "Dr. Fauci appeared under subpoena and invoked the Fifth Amendment to refuse answering questions. During the hearing, I ruled that the Fifth Amendment did not apply because of the pardon, and that Fauci had waived any remaining privilege by giving opening testimony. I ordered him to answer and warned him about contempt, yet he still refused. That is obstruction of a congressional investigation. The Committee will act accordingly."

PASSED BY REPUBLICANS ON BEHALF OF THE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS AND THEIR FAMILIES STILL AFFECTED YEARS AFTER THE COVID PANDEMIC, THE RESOLUTION TO HOLD ANTHONY FAUCI IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS HAS PASSED OUT OF THE SENATE HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE BY A VOTE… https://t.co/9wgO1KeMd2

— Senator Rand Paul (@SenRandPaul) August 6, 2026

Meanwhile, the WSJ reported last night that the panel obtained a copy of Fauci's cell phone.

A Senate panel investigating Dr. Anthony Fauci has obtained a copy of the doctor’s iPhone, potentially securing even more records related to the doctor’s actions during the Covid-19 pandemic. The copy of the phone was transferred by the Department of Health and Human Services to the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which is chaired by Sen. Ron Johnson (R., Wis.).

This revelation comes just days after copies of Fauci’s journals were publicly released following their transfer from HHS to Congress. Two Republican senators, Johnson and Rand Paul of Kentucky, have increased pressure on Fauci in recent days to answer questions related to pandemic health measures and the origins of Covid-19.

The subpoena, issued in July, directed Fauci to testify on the committee's investigation into "risky life sciences research and the origins of the COVID-19 virus," according to the Epoch Times.

The July 29 hearing itself was a prolonged exercise in refusal. Fauci opened by accusing Paul of an "unhinged obsession" with him and claiming the sole purpose of the session was to trap him into saying something that would land him "behind bars."

From that point forward he answered nothing of consequence. Senators pressed him on gain-of-function research funding, the lab-leak evidence he had privately acknowledged while publicly promoting a natural-origin narrative, lockdown policies, school closures, personal financial awards solicited with federal employees on taxpayer time, and contradictions between his public statements and private diary entries. He declined them all.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 15:55

Judge Rules Trump Admin Can End Temporary Protected Status For Haitians

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Aug. 5 allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status (TPS) for an estimated 350,000 Haitian nationals following a Supreme Court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that a previous court order that “had stayed the effective date of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s Termination of the Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status pending judicial review … is no longer in effect.”

But Reyes also denied the government’s request to halt discovery in the lawsuit that was filed over TPS in Haiti. She told the plaintiffs and the government to provide a new schedule in the order.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last year said that around 350,000 Haitian nationals were living in the United States when Noem, who left the administration earlier this year, issued an order ending TPS for the country.

Multiple courts paused enforcement of the order before the Supreme Court in June ruled that the Trump administration could go ahead with rescinding the rule.

Before the judge’s Wednesday ruling at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned in an interview that Haitians under the program should leave the United States.

“We’re going after them right now … these individuals can either self-deport or we’ll arrest you and send you back. It’s that simple,” he said.

Under the Biden administration, TPS policies were expanded, allowing hundreds of thousands of people from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, and other countries to remain in the United States. The Trump administration has moved to revoke TPS for a number of countries, saying that the program was meant to be temporary.

Homeland Security officials said that the TPS program, which was set up under the Immigration Act of 1990, has become a magnet for illegal immigrants in recent years.

“Using TPS to grant temporary status to successive waves of new arrivals from a designated country may generate a significant pull factor for illegal immigration and act in tension with the congressional design,” the agency said in a Federal Register notice.

Meanwhile, DHS said in the Federal Register notice and in court papers that conditions in Haiti no longer justify the designation.

Illegal immigration from Haiti turned into a flashpoint during the 2024 election when vice presidential candidate JD Vance and presidential candidate Donald Trump referred to thousands of Haitian nationals who were living in Springfield, Ohio, generating complaints from residents.

During arguments before the Supreme Court, Geoffrey Pipoly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, claimed that the TPS termination was due to President Donald Trump’s “racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians, in particular.”

In the high court ruling, a 6–3 majority ruled that the president has the right to start deporting people from Haiti and Syria and that federal law usually bars judicial review of future TPS terminations or designations.

TPS was designated for Haiti in January 2010 following a major earthquake and was extended multiple times.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 15:45