Zero Rss

Young Americans Expect To Buy A Home Later In Life (Or Not At All)

For decades, homeownership has been a key milestone of adulthood in the United States.

In recent years, however, the middle-class ideal of homeownership and suburban comfort, once an embodiment of the American Dream, has gotten out of reach for many families, as elevated home prices, high mortgage rates and a period of stagnant real wages have left many families unable to even consider it.

As Statista's Felix Richter shows below, only 25 percent of non-homeowners expect to buy a house in the next five years, according to Gallup – the lowest share since the question was first asked in 2013.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Among those aged 18 to 34, a key group of prospective buyers, intentions have also fallen sharply.

The share expecting to buy in the next five years dropped from 57 percent in 2013/2015 to 29 percent in 2025/2026.

At the same time, the share of non-owners who don’t see themselves buying a home in the foreseeable future has increased from 13 to 30 percent.

The rest expects to wait longer before buying a home, either to build up savings for a down payment or in hopes that prices and mortgage rates will come down from their current levels.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:45

Beijing's Trojan Horse Rolls Into Canada: National Security Expert Warns Carney's Chinese EV Deals Embeds Sabotage Risk

Submitted by The Bureau's Sam Cooper (emphasis our own), 

China keeps finding inventive ways to burrow into the West, and Canada's new appetite for Chinese electric vehicles may be the most consequential opening yet.

That is the warning at the center of a report published this week by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and written by Brenda Shaffer, an energy and national-security specialist who teaches at the United States Naval Postgraduate School.

China, she writes, "continues to find creative ways to infiltrate and influence the West," embedding in its exports the capacity to surveil citizens, disrupt transportation and ports, and trigger blackouts and grid damage.

Shaffer situates the electric-vehicle question inside a wider argument about hybrid warfare. China, Russia and Iran, she notes, have each written attacks on Western domestic energy infrastructure into their war doctrines, erasing the old line between the home front and the battlefield. Even brief disruptions to electricity or transit, she argues, could spread public panic and erode support for a distant conflict — the defense of Taiwan being the obvious test.

The cars began arriving in June, the product of a strategic partnership Prime Minister Mark Carney signed in Beijing in January. Ottawa cut its tariff on Chinese electric vehicles from 100 percent to 6.1 percent, opening an initial quota of roughly 49,000 vehicles in the first year. Carney has cast the imports as a low-cost route for Canadians switching to electric, and analysts cited by Shaffer expect Chinese brands to capture a fifth of the Canadian market.

Shaffer leans on an internal Public Safety Canada memo, obtained under access-to-information law, warning that opening the market to "high-risk vendors" invites connected cars that "collect significant amounts of data on Canadians, which can have intelligence value." Her account of the official response is withering. Asked how Canada would protect drivers, the chief of the defense staff, General Jennie Carignan, told reporters only that "we don't have a lot of Chinese vehicles so far," and Defense Minister David McGuinty said he would raise the question with base commanders.

The danger, in her telling, runs well past cars.

A congressional probe found hidden communications equipment inside Chinese-made cranes at major American ports; the same cranes are common in Canadian harbors, where Transport Canada began assessing the risk in 2023. More worrying still are solar power inverters — the devices that feed renewable energy into the grid — of which China supplies about 70 percent worldwide. American investigators have identified undeclared communication components inside some Chinese inverters that experts warn could be used to switch them off remotely and destabilize power grids.

Lithuania has banned Chinese inverters outright and the European Union has moved to bar them from public funding, while Canada, Shaffer writes, has imposed no comparable limits — even as the January partnership commits Ottawa and Beijing to deepen cooperation on solar, wind and battery storage.

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre's auto policy would prohibit Chinese-made vehicles from proximity to Canadian Forces bases and other sensitive or strategic infrastructure.

In Washington, where opposition to Chinese electric vehicles is one of the few genuinely bipartisan positions, President Donald Trump has called the deal a disaster for Canada, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Canada would live to regret it, and the U.S. ambassador, Peter Hoekstra, vowed the cars would never reach American roads: "We're not going to open the floodgates to have Chinese cars coming into the US from Canada."

Shaffer's alarm is echoed, from a different vantage, by Michael Kovrig, the former Canadian diplomat held in China for more than 1,000 days. In testimony to Parliament this spring, Kovrig described the deal as a "trifecta of risks" — structural dependence, unfair competition that erodes industrial capacity, and systemic pressure on government policy — and warned that the People's Republic "weaponizes technology, supply chains and market access" to force acquiescence to its agenda.

Commenting this week on his own testimony, Kovrig wrote on social media that opening Canada's market to Chinese electric vehicles "should be assessed not as a normal trade agreement, but as a tactical gamble that risks deep entanglement." The Chinese Communist Party, he wrote, "pours enormous resources into the sector to build scale and sustain overcapacity." He went on: "The pattern is to flood, consolidate and weaponize. We've seen China do this before with solar panels, steel, ships and drones, and EVs are now moving through the same stages in global markets."

The warnings have not slowed Carney's government, which is pressing ahead at full speed. Industry Minister Mélanie Joly spent much of last week in China, courting BYD, Chery, Geely and Shanghai Launch Automotive Technology to build electric vehicles on Canadian soil, and confirmed that the import quota will keep climbing — rising by 6.5 percent a year from 49,000 vehicles in 2026 to roughly 67,000 annually by 2031. Carney, caught on a hot microphone with Trump at the Group of Seven summit in France, defended the arrangement as "less than 3 per cent of our market, 49,000 cars," telling the president, "It's a cap, we capped, a hard line."

Beijing is pleased.

Geely Holding Group's Lotus-brand electric vehicles will reach Canada next month — the first such models sold under the 49,000-vehicle quota — China's ambassador to Canada, Wang Di, told Reuters on Friday. The cars would arrive, he said, "and they will be holding a ceremony when the cars are delivered in Montreal," a milestone in the trade pivot Carney has pursued to move Canada away from dependence on the United States.

On June 26, the Chinese Communist Party's state-run China Daily approvingly reported Canada's pledge to lift its exports to China by 50 percent by 2030. At a Canada Day reception at the Canadian embassy in Beijing, the mission's chargé d'affaires, Mark Richardson, called Canada "a stable, reliable partner — a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term," adding, "That includes with China." Of Carney's January visit, he said: "To say this has been a significant year for Canada–China relations would be an understatement. In many ways, it has been a turning point."

He noted that Canada had become a major energy exporter to China and observed that "the first shipment of Chinese-made electric vehicles has arrived in Canada under a new quota that was agreed in January."

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 22:10

Newsom Scrubs '$100 Million' Slippery Slope From National 'Billionaire Tax' Pitch - And He's Coming After Inheritance Too

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) on Friday called for a national tax on billionaires. Except, in the original version, it was anyone with a net worth of at least $100 million - as quoted by multiple outlets, citing a post from Newsom's Substack account. 

As originally reported by Politico:

His plan to address the country’s yawning wealth gap includes “a true minimum tax on billionaires and those with a net worth of $100 million” and creating a national public equity fund to give all Americans a stake in the economic gains created by artificial intelligence companies. 

The post now reads:

"So here is what I support: A national billionaires’ tax. A true minimum tax on billionaires — a modern Buffett Rule — that ensures the people at the very top pay at least the tax rate their own workers pay."

Bitch please. 

Newsom also wants to tax inheritance - writing "We also need to rewrite our inheritance rules. Over the next twenty years, this country will live through the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in human history, with roughly $124 trillion changing hands. If we do not act, that transfer of wealth among the ultra-wealthy will lock in a permanent American aristocracy of inherited wealth, with all the political consequences the founders warned us about."

Notice he cites the massive wealth transfer, but not the level of inheritance he's targeting - as most slippery slopes begin.

Newsom's proposals come after he failed to stop California's legislation from with placing a state-level wealth tax on the November ballot. 

Newsom’s proposal follows a failed attempt by the governor, billionaires and progressive groups of persuading the union behind the California tax, SEIU-UHW, to withdraw the measure before Thursday evening’s deadline. Newsom had even privately expressed assurances about an agreement, telling a wealthy donor he expected to negotiate the measure off the ballot, Bloomberg News previously reported. -Bloomberg

"For Newsom, it’s the worst of all worlds, because it puts him squarely in the middle of a national Democratic debate about equity, taxation and affordability," said Steven Maviglio, a veteran Democratic strategist in the state. "His announcement might deflect from that a bit."

Newsom also suggests creating a public equity (slush) fund that would 'take a stake in the artificial intelligence economy.'

Anti-Billionaire-Tax-Billionaires

Shockingly, California's billionaires aren't exactly excited about all this tax malarkey. In fact, while the anti-tax coalition has been most prominently linked to billionaire Sergey Brin (who's funding other ballot measures that could nullify a wealth tax), Planned Parenthood of California and several labor unions are weirdly also against taxing billionaires - arguing that the proceeds from the tax would benefit select groups, while potentially damaging the entire state's budget because wealthy residents will flee. 

Even they know it's just a slush fund. 

"We are ready to defeat this convoluted nightmare of a measure in November," a spokesperson for Golden State Promise, a group backed by billionaire Chris Larsen, told Bloomberg, while a different coalition linked to doctors and school boards called California's proposal a threat to "vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects."

Either way, Democrats continue to actively scheme for ways to extract more money from capitalists. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 21:35

DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Approve No-Bond Immigration Detention Policy

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to approve its policy of detaining illegal immigrants who have been in the country for years without releasing them on bond.

D. John Sauer, then the U.S. solicitor general nominee, testifies during his confirmation hearing in Washington on Feb. 26, 2025. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The petition in Raycraft v. Lopez-Campos was docketed on June 24, but at time of publication did not appear on the court's website because of a sensitive-filings rule. The court's public information office provided The Epoch Times with a copy of the filed petition on June 26.

Adopted last year, the policy represents a change from how previous administrations interpreted a specific provision of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). It also led to a flood of lawsuits from immigrants challenging detention.

Legal experts previously told The Epoch Times they expected that the justices would at some point intervene after several appeals courts issued conflicting interpretations of the law's detention provisions.

Three federal courts of appeals have rejected the policy, while two have upheld it. The result has been uneven enforcement across the country, raising questions about how millions of illegal immigrants would be detained.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which amended the INA, required detention without bond for illegal immigrants seeking entry into the country.

The provision at issue, Section 1225 of the INA, says individuals seeking admission "shall be detained" if an immigration officer determines they are "not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted."

In President Donald Trump's second administration, the government said this detention mandate applied to individuals who had already entered the United States. Multiple illegal immigrants have argued that portion of the INA didn't apply to them because they were already in the country and therefore no longer seeking admission or undergoing a formal admissions process.

Instead, they said another provision of the INA - Section 1226 - applied and allowed them to receive bond hearings.

Trump's interpretation introduced a dramatic change in federal policy, David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, previously told The Epoch Times.

The position that illegal immigrants apprehended in the interior of the United States may be held without bond "has not been the policy of any prior administration, including the first Trump administration," Super said.

The policy is part of the administration's broader immigration strategy, which includes ending so-called catch-and-release efforts, or releasing migrants as they await hearings after being apprehended at the border.

In the new petition, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer states that the case is about "eleven aliens who entered the United States illegally and are now present in the country without having been admitted."

The respondents, who were apprehended between June and September 2025, were put into removal proceedings and charged with being inadmissible and being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled. To be paroled is to be allowed into the country subject to a later decision on immigration status.

Several of the respondents were also charged with not possessing valid immigration documents.

Sauer said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ruled that the respondents should be detained under Section 1225 for the duration of their removal proceedings. Several respondents asked for bond hearings before an immigration judge. The immigration judges eventually found that Section 1225 deprived them of authority to grant bond.

The respondents filed habeas petitions with federal district courts in Michigan seeking release. All the release requests were granted. In three of the four cases, the district court also found that detaining respondents without conducting a bond hearing violated their due process rights.

Sauer said the government released the respondents without holding a bond hearing and appealed to a panel of the Cincinnati, Ohio-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In a divided opinion, the appeals court affirmed.

The panel found Section 1225 does not apply to noncitizens already present in the country because they are not "seeking admission." The panel also determined that the detention of the respondents without bond hearings violated their due process rights.

Sauer urged the Supreme Court to accept the government's appeal.

The legal question is "whether aliens present in the United States after an illegal entry must be detained while their removal proceedings unfold.

"The correct answer is yes: 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A) mandates detention for such aliens pending their removal proceedings, and there is no due-process problem with that result," he said.

The Sixth Circuit's holdings are "incorrect," he said, and given the 3-2 split among appeals courts, there is now "an unworkable patchwork of inconsistent immigration enforcement, where aliens present without admission are subject to mandatory detention in some circuits but are entitled to bond hearings and often released in others."

"Immigration enforcement should not depend on geographical happenstance," he said.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will take up the petition.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 21:00

Military Depoliticization, Hegseth, And DEI

Authored by 'Cynical Publius' via American Greatness,

As I read and hear the usual cavalcade of woke, retired Democrat generals and admirals like McRaven, McCaffrey, Franken, and others falsely claiming that Pete Hegseth is “politicizing” the senior ranks of the U.S. military, inside my head, I am screaming in rage at the impunity with which they spread this pernicious and wholly inaccurate falsehood.

Hegseth is doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE as he depoliticizes our military’s ranks by eradicating the very most political doctrine to ever infect the U.S. military since the U.S. Civil War: so-called “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” or “DEI.”

DEI is an expression of Marxism by way of the Frankfurt School. Instead of building Marxist systems based on economic class, the Frankfurt School’s teachings build systems based on grievance classes. Known also as “critical theory,” DEI espouses the concept that there is no such thing as objective truth, that all truth is instead subjective, and that such truth is subjectively decided by whoever is in power at the moment.

This philosophy is in stark contrast to the Constitution, which stands on the shoulders of natural law—the idea that profound truth is objective, ordained by God, and that all men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights.

DEI instead claims that there is an inherent imbalance in society driven by race, ethnicity, religion, sex, and sexual preference. Since “truth” is what you make of it via power, DEI uses force and power to strip individuals of autonomy and individuality in favor of their skin color or what is between their legs. DEI is a form of Marxism, and it is the ultimate expression of bigotry in modern society.

(By the way, given the manner in which DEI seeks to destroy the natural law principles underpinning the Constitution, it effectively sits in defiance of the sacred oath of U.S. service members to “support and defend the Constitution.”)

The U.S. military long had rudimentary forms of DEI in its promotion systems, with promotion board results constantly reworked to reflect the “correct” racial and gender balances. However, with the advent of DEI as a more formal, society-altering structure, under the Obama and Biden administrations, the wholly political DEI doctrine was massively forced on the military like a dog shoved into a car on its way to the veterinarian’s office for neutering.

White service members were told they are inherently evil based solely on their skin color. Combat arms professions were opened to women who, on average, were manifestly physically unqualified to perform required duties. Pressure mounted for 18-year-old females in the barracks to be forced to live with biological men play-acting as women. “Pride” celebrations were rampant. Racist DEI books became mandatory professional reading for officers and senior NCOs. The United States Air Force decided skin color was the basis for being an Air Force officer.

It went so far that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (“CJCS”), Mark Milley, said before Congress, “I want to understand white rage. And I’m white. And I want to understand it.” In doing so, he racially slandered every white troop under his command (yes, I know CJCS is not a command position, but you get my drift), and the political Left and the other woke generals rejoiced.

Where we once only saw red, white, and blue and the color of our uniforms, suddenly, the only color we were allowed to see was the color of human skin.

In the field and afloat, white male commanders learned to be very circumspect in disciplining wayward black, female, or gay troops, because it was just too easy to be labeled a “racist” or a “misogynist” or a “homophobe” in career-ending fashion.

Good order and discipline broke down.

Combat effectiveness declined as a result.

All thanks to politics—the politics of DEI.

And the retired admirals and generals you hear moaning today to Goebbelsesque propaganda rags like The Atlantic? Not only did they not object, they embraced it because that is how these wholly political officers were able to advance. Now that Pete Hegseth is purging our hallowed military halls of the diseased, racist, misandrist, bigoted, hate-mongering, Christophobic, intolerant, diversity-destroying, inequitable, exclusionary, expressly political doctrines of DEI, these political animals are OUTRAGED. They see their Brutalist, Marxist spiritual edifice in tatters, and they don’t much like it, so they lie and say it’s all “political.”

DEI is the worst thing that has happened to the U.S. military in any of our lifetimes. It was the ultimate expression of a political acid test shoved down the throats of everyone serving in a U.S. uniform. It was Marxism on a massive scale, specifically designed to polarize the ranks and make our military less combat effective.

DEI was and is an abomination.

And Pete Hegseth has unraveled this monster in a mere two years. We are rebuilding our military on top of the ruins of the failed DEI experiment.

In all of U.S. history, no one has done more to DEPOLITICIZE the U.S. military than Pete Hegseth.

So, when you see the legacy media and the usual generals and admirals who would not take Douglas MacArthur’s advice to just “fade away” screeching that Hegseth is “politicizing” the military, know that they are angry only because he is doing exactly the opposite. The star-laden critical theorists are losing, and they will not go down without a fight.

But losing they are, and so long as the 2026 and 2028 elections stay the course, they have already lost.

Do not buy the fabulistic “Hegseth is politicizing the military’s senior ranks” narrative. Exactly the opposite is true.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 20:25

California's $20 Million Attempt To Silence Medical Speech

Authored by Danielle White via RealClearPolitics,

In a trial set to begin June 24, California's Attorney General Rob Bonta is asking a court to do something that should alarm every American, regardless of where they stand on abortion: punish nonprofit organizations with ruinous fines for speaking about a lawful medical treatment.

The target is not fraud. These charities offer their services for free.

It is not patient harm. There is no evidence of any patient being harmed.

It is not even illegal conduct. The underlying treatment remains perfectly legal.

The target is speech.

Heartbeat International and Real Options are pro-life nonprofits that provide information and care to women who first take the abortion drug but regret that choice and want to continue their pregnancies. California wants to impose penalties approaching $20 million because these charities have dared to tell women that another option may exist.

Twenty million dollars. That number alone should tell us what this case is really about.

No reasonable observer can believe that bankrupting charities is a proportionate response to truthful and non-misleading statements about a free service designed to help a woman exercise her constitutional right to continue her pregnancy. This is not consumer protection. It is political warfare conducted through the machinery of a government that wishes to silence speech it does not like.

What's most remarkable is what California cannot prove.

After years of investigation, subpoenas, discovery, and litigation, the attorney general has failed to identify a single woman harmed by APR treatment. Not one. No parade of victims. No evidence of widespread deception. He set up a website practically begging for complaints and still could not muster a single woman claiming she was misled or harmed.

Instead, seven women have publicly shared the stories of how Heartbeat International and Real Options helped them successfully reverse their abortions. Three mothers are slated to testify from the stand about their joy at reversing their unwanted abortions.

Still, the state asks the court to punish the very charities who helped these women continue their wanted pregnancies simply because government lawyers disagree with their viewpoint on the scientific evidence regarding APR.

That is a dangerous precedent.

Scientific disagreement is not fraud. If it were, much of modern medicine would not exist. Medical consensus is not handed down from on high. It evolves. Researchers debate. Physicians challenge prevailing views. Studies are published, criticized, replicated, and revised.

The proper response to disputed science is more debate, more research, and more evidence - not government censorship backed by eight-figure penalties.

Yet that is precisely what California seeks.

The state is asking the court to declare that one side of a scientific debate may speak freely while the other side risks financial destruction. Today, the target happens to be pro-life organizations. Tomorrow, it could be anyone whose views fall out of favor with those holding political power or anyone who dares to innovate in the medical field.

And make no mistake: This lawsuit did not emerge in a vacuum.

Since the Dobbs decision, officials across the country have openly pledged to target pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations. California's attorney general has repeatedly attacked what he calls "crisis pregnancy centers." Against that backdrop, it is fanciful to view this lawsuit as a neutral effort to protect consumers. It looks exactly like an attempt to silence disfavored viewpoints through the coercive power of the state.

The irony is impossible to miss. Politicians who routinely invoke the language of "choice" now seek to suppress information that women are seeking in order to exercise their choice to withdraw their consent to their in-progress abortions and continue their wanted pregnancies.

This lawsuit demonstrates that AG Bonta does not stand for reproductive choice. He stands for abortions - wanted or unwanted.

In fact, according to AG Bonta in his trial brief filed last week, "That Defendants [Heartbeat International and Real Options] provided hope to these individuals only underscores the seriousness of their misconduct." California argues that merely providing hope to women who wish to continue their pregnancies after they start an unwanted abortion is damaging.

A government confident in its position does not need censorship. It does not need speech codes. It does not need multi-million-dollar penalties for those who hold different views. It does not ask a court to issue a financial death penalty for charities whose mission is to provide free services and preserve life.

California has chosen suppression over science and punishment over persuasion.

The court should reject that effort. Not merely to protect Heartbeat International and Real Options, but to protect the principle that government officials do not get to decide which side of a scientific or moral debate is allowed to speak.

Especially when a woman's right to continue her pregnancy and her unborn child's life hang in the balance.

Danielle White, Esq., is general counsel for Heartbeat International.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 19:50

Trump Signs Regenerative Agriculture Order To Boost Food Supply

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on June 25 to promote regenerative agriculture practices in an effort to support farmers and boost the nation's food supply security.

President Donald Trump arrives to speak during a Rose Garden Club dinner with American farmers at the White House on June 25, 2026. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Regenerative agriculture is a holistic farming approach designed to restore degraded soils.

Trump said in his order that such practices can "strengthen soil health, lower input costs, improve chemical efficiency to reduce overall use, improve farm profitability, maintain yields, increase market value, expand access to new markets, and strengthen rural economies."

The order directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Health and Human Services Department, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to research the effect of cumulative exposure of chemicals in the food supply.

It also instructs USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins to expand the reach of the Regenerative Agriculture Pilot Program, share its results with stakeholders, and build public-private partnerships to support farmers seeking to adopt regenerative practices.

Trump also directed EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to prioritize the registration of alternative crop protection tools and review data on pre-harvest desiccation uses to ensure they meet safety and labeling standards, according to a White House fact sheet.

The order was announced the same day Trump hosted a dinner for farmers in the White House Rose Garden, during which the president revealed that he had asked Congress to approve a supplemental funding bill with $11 billion in relief payments for farmers.

"It was my honor to sign an executive order directing federal agencies to accelerate agricultural innovations that give farmers and ranchers the necessary resources to ensure American crops are the healthiest, and the most abundant, and the most affordable," Trump said at the dinner. "And we're always working for the farmer. We want to make it better and easier for you."

Shortly after the order was issued, the USDA released its final Regenerative Feedstock Rule designed to help farmers generate new value from regenerative agricultural practices through biofuel markets.

Rollins said the rule creates a framework connecting regenerative agriculture practices to new markets within the biofuel supply chain for corn, soybeans, sorghum, and spring canola.

"Instead of mandates, we're creating market opportunities. Farmers who choose to implement regenerative practices will have new opportunities to earn premium prices, lower their input costs, improve soil health, and strengthen the long-term profitability of their operations," Rollins said in a statement.

The Regenerative Pilot Program, a $700 million initiative launched by the USDA last year, has completed more than 67,000 whole-farm conservation plans covering more than 49 million acres and over 1,500 conservation contracts valued at more than $200 million, according to the USDA.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 18:40

A Civil War May Be Brewing In The Democratic Party

Tuesday's primary results weren't just a bad night for the Democratic establishment. They were a warning shot that the party's socialist insurgency has arrived, is organized, and intends to win. And the problem for them is that they have no idea what to do about it, which could spark a civil war within the party.

On election morning, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani joins former New York City Comptroller Brad Lander as he campaigns for Congress outside of an election polling center, June 23, 2026 in the Lower East Side neighborhood of New York City. (Photo by Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis via Getty Images)

The Democratic Socialists of America have been running their own long game inside the Democratic Party for years. Now DSA NYC co-chair Gustavo Gordillo is willing to say the quiet part out loud. The DSA runs candidates on the Democratic ballot line, wins primaries, and places members inside Democratic caucuses. The difference is that they don't answer to the party apparatus or its donor class.

"Our candidates run as Democrats," Gordillo said. "We're on the Democratic Party ballot line. We contest the primaries, and when they're in the legislature, they're part of the Democratic Party caucus. But we don't agree with the way the Democratic Party establishment organizes or runs its party apparatus."

Gordillo identified a contradiction at the core of the party's identity. "There's a problem in the Democratic Party where they are funded by billionaire donors and at the same time they're trying to represent the working class," he said. "And in our opinion you have to choose between the billionaire class and the working class. It's just impossible to satisfy all of them."

This is the DSA co-chair. Let me summarize what he says in this video: We're using the Democratic Party as a ballot-access vehicle, not because we share its goals. We build our own organization, get elected under the Democratic label, caucus with Democrats when it's useful, pic.twitter.com/zYwsv4J8Bt

— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) June 24, 2026

Establishment Democrats aren't happy about this. "If you hate the Democratic Party, then please don't run for our nomination," former DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison said in a post on X. "Don't use our resources. Don't rely on our volunteers. Don't use our infrastructure. Don't ask Democrats to invest their time, money, and energy in your campaign."

Harrison argued that the Democratic Socialists of America should focus on "building the party you actually support."

Others are clearly concerned that the rise of DSA-linked candidates will hurt the Democratic Party.

"All of us are a little frustrated with the Democratic Party. But you don't blow it up," New York Attorney General Letitia James said.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of whom represent New York, were unable to stop what happened, and now both are in serious political trouble. Jeffries was lucky in that Mamdani steered the DSA away from running a primary challenger against him. However, he may not be spared in a future election. Supporters of Tuesday's victorious socialist candidates made the long-term stakes clear, chanting "you're next" in reference to Jeffries after Tuesday's victories.

Even moderates within the party are running out of patience and pinning the blame on the party leadership. Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), considered a more moderate Democrat, suggested Thursday that both Jeffries and Schumer may need to step aside, framing the problem in terms that should embarrass both men. "To me, the lesson was simple. Democrats had too many priorities. They tried to make everyone happy and answer every question. When you prioritize everything, no one knows what you actually stand for," Slotkin told Stephen A. Smith on SiriusXM's "Straight Shooter with Stephen A."

She contrasted that with Donald Trump's 2024 approach. "He said, 'I'm going to make your life more affordable. I'm going to put more money in your pocket.' ... He won because he kept his message simple and focused on the issue Americans cared most about."

A year and a half after the 2024 election, the party still hasn't settled on a direction. "That's why I believe we need significant new leadership," Slotkin said. "The old models are no longer working, and that includes the Democratic Party."

Sure enough, Politico reports that moderate Democrats are "sounding the alarm after massive losses in New York's primaries."

The far left is eyeing even bigger targets in key battleground primaries that will determine control of Congress as well as governorships in crucial swing states. Most immediately, moderates fear that a progressive primary sweep could imperil the party's hopes of beating Republicans this fall.

They also have a more fundamental fear: that progressives are becoming more mainstream as they keep winning - reshaping the Democratic Party.

The socialists are winning this civil war, and they're just getting started. Colorado Democrats head into their own primaries carrying the same internal contradictions. Democratic Socialist Melat Kiros is challenging longtime incumbent Diana DeGette in a district the establishment considers safely theirs. In the 8th District, progressive-aligned Manny Rutinel faces establishment-backed Shannon Bird, with the winner eventually squaring off against freshman Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.).

The progressive candidates may not sweep those races, but the political damage lands either way. Republicans will link centrist Democrats to the party's most radical voices regardless of who holds which seat. Policy ideas like defunding the police or abolishing prisons entirely energize the activist base and repel competitive-district voters in equal measure. GOP candidates will make sure general election voters in Colorado know exactly what the rest of the Democratic coalition is demanding.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 18:05

US SNAP Payment-Error-Rate Hits High Of 10.62%

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The national payment error rate for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) hit 10.62 percent for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025, far exceeding the 6 percent threshold set by Congress.

“While this is a modest decrease from FY 2024, the FY 2025 rate still shows significant waste at the state level,“ the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said in a June 24 statement.

”Including both overpayments and underpayments, this year’s rate represents a collective $10.1 billion in improper payments nationwide.”

The payment error rate measures how accurately states calculate SNAP eligibility and the amounts that beneficiaries receive.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law by President Donald Trump last year, established a State Quality Control Incentive provision under which states must pay a percentage of SNAP program bills if their payment error rate exceeds a certain limit.

A state with an error rate of 6 percent to 8 percent will be required to fund 5 percent of the benefits. This scales up as error rates get higher. States with error rates of 10 percent or more must fund 15 percent of benefits.

“[This has instituted] real financial consequences for states that mismanage taxpayer dollars,” the USDA stated, noting that these rules could come into effect as soon as Oct. 1, 2027.

States with error rates exceeding 6 percent are also required to submit a Corrective Action Plan to the USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, explaining how they intend to address the root causes of the high error rates. Some states may end up getting financially penalized.

“These payment error rates are further proof that state accountability is severely lacking in SNAP,” Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins said.

“USDA has taken historic action to help interested states curb SNAP waste, and I hope other states, regardless of political leadership, prioritize needy families and the American taxpayer over politics.”

Tackling Error Rates

A June report from the American Public Human Services Association detailed the results of a survey conducted among all 50 state SNAP agencies between May 19 and June 5, which was aimed at understanding how the agencies planned to improve their payment accuracy.

Out of the 39 states that responded to questions on state capacity and operational readiness, 92 percent said they had already completed a root cause analysis of the error rates or that such an effort was underway.

“States reported that payment errors stem from both participant and administrative factors, with responses suggesting errors are roughly evenly distributed between the two,” the report reads.

Many states have increased or are considering boosting their workforce, expanding training, adopting new technologies, and strengthening quality assurance functions to identify and avoid errors.

Commenting on the FY 2025 SNAP payment error rates, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) said efforts must be taken to ensure that the program is administered in a fair, accurate, and responsible manner, according to a June 24 statement from the committee.

“It is clear that improvements were needed to ensure SNAP is administered as intended to support those truly in need while protecting taxpayer dollars,” Boozman said.

“I applaud the states that are implementing innovative solutions to decrease error rates and be good stewards of federal funds. The reforms included in the Working Families Tax Cuts were designed to promote accountability for significant mismanagement.”

Working Families Tax Cuts refer to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

SNAP Changes

States and federal officials are making SNAP food purchase rules more stringent to direct beneficiaries toward healthier choices.

Beginning this fall, SNAP-authorized retailers are required to stock more nutritious items across four food categories—produce, protein, dairy, and grains.

Almost a dozen states also plan to ban beneficiaries from buying energy drinks, candy, and soda using SNAP coupons over the coming months.

However, on June 22, a federal judge blocked the USDA from restricting SNAP beneficiaries in five states from buying sugary foods or drinks.

The states—Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Nebraska—had previously received USDA approval to impose such restrictions. The judge ruled that the department lacked the authority to approve these food restriction waivers.

A USDA spokesperson defended the department’s actions.

“The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial,” the spokesperson said.

“USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for ​families and communities reliant on ​SNAP.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 17:30

"Iran Is Not Really A Threat To The US"; Curt Mills On Pulling The Chips Off The Table Re:Hormuz

President Trump's Iran agreement remains under pressure after a fresh round of retaliatory strikes by the U.S. in and around the Strait of Hormuz. Iran allegedly targeted a commercial cargo ship with attack drones, U.S. forces responded by striking Iranian missile, drone, and radar sites.

So the ceasefire is shaky but it seems …..

Against that backdrop, last night, American Conservative executive director Curt Mills and Will Chamberlain of the Article III Project joined prolific author Michael Malice to debate whether Trump struck the right deal, whether preserving stability in the Strait of Hormuz justifies the concessions to Tehran, and what the agreement means for the factional battle within the Republican party… also Israel :)

Below were the highlights for those short on time:

Voting Dems over Neocons in ‘28

The Iran war (and how a deal pans out) will have an effect on the future of the Republican Party, but the old guard retaking power could simply leave millions done with voting…

Mills said he supported Trump because he represented "a different type of conservatism," warning that if the GOP simply reverts to "Jeb Bushism, Scott Walkerism, Mitt Romneyism," then "I'm just not that interested in the project."

Chamberlain challenged Mills' past comments about voting for Ro Khanna over Marco Rubio, calling the idea "crazy" and accusing Mills of "enabling communists." Mills responded that if Republicans nominate "the absolute worst nominee for my interests," such as Rubio or Ted Cruz, while Democrats nominate "the only one that I feel like is responding and speaking plain English," then "yeah, I would consider it,” which Chamberlain deemed  “insane."

pic.twitter.com/OMmAQa0FH7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026 Side Debate: Deport Mehdi Hasan?

Chamberlain argued strongly for denaturalizing and deporting foreign born “commies,” namely Mehdi Hasan, Ilhan Omar, and the like.

Recently naturalized citizens who are hostile to the United States, he said, should lose their citizenship, saying, "Communism is where everything has its limit."

Hasan may suck, Mills countered, but he’s not a communist."Do you think Mehdi Hasan is a Marxist-Leninist... who has deep opinions about Trotsky versus Stalin?” Mills added that deporting legal residents over heated political disputes is a dangerous path and against the “American Spirit”.

Chamberlain still held that Hasan is "extraordinarily hostile to America and its interests... I think that he should be deported. He's a British Islamist." 

pic.twitter.com/DwsxHVHSUe

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026

We highly recommend the full debate included below. Also feel free to watch on YouTube or listen on Spotify.

https://t.co/PgdhEZ2LUX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 26, 2026 Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 16:55

Russiagate Prosecutor Calls Audible On 'Grand Conspiracy'

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearWire,

Although Donald Trump's defenders describe the Russia hoax and other efforts to frame the president as a "grand conspiracy," RealClearInvestigations has learned that the man now leading the probe of that scandal is pursuing multiple conspiracy prosecutions that are smaller and more manageable, according to several sources with direct knowledge of the probe.

Since taking over the Justice Department's far-flung investigation in April, veteran prosecutor Joseph diGenova and his team quickly concluded that combining all of the alleged wrongdoing, which ranges from falsifying evidence and committing perjury to leaking classified information and obstructing justice, into one unified plot and trying them together as a single case would be unmanageable.

"You'd have 50 defendants in the courtroom," said a well-placed source familiar with diGenova's thinking.

Before diGenova took over the investigation two months ago, its contours were ill-defined as it lurched ahead in fits and starts for more than a year. But according to the sources, diGenova is tackling the case with a new, disciplined focus and in so doing is giving it the direction it's lacked.

But this is a change in tactics, not the theory of the case. The sources say his operating assumption is that Trump's enemies in the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, the Obama and Biden administration, some Democrats in Congress, and their like-minded accomplices across several government agencies - including the CIA and the FBI - joined in one continuous conspiracy over almost a decade to deny Trump his civil rights, derail his political campaigns, and undermine his presidency.

Holistic Review

Where other investigators have looked at specific pieces of the effort Trump's defenders now call "Russiagate" after its original origins, diGenova is launching the first holistic look at the entire scandal. A well-placed source said it is looking at events from June 2015 when Trump first came down the golden escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy through the 2022 FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago after he left office.

Insider sources provided RCI with an exclusive look into the specially assigned prosecutor's office and its recent legal maneuvers.

They said two separate grand juries in South Florida are now collecting and hearing evidence in what could become a series of conspiracy cases brought against people who served in the highest reaches of government, including former CIA Director John Brennan, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former FBI Director James Comey.

Since much of the government's alleged corrupt anti-Trump activity took place in 2016, prosecuting the cases as conspiracies is the only way to get around the five-year federal statute of limitations.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tapped diGenova, a longtime denizen of Washington, D.C., who was a U.S. attorney during the Reagan administration, to helm the sprawling investigation into what Blanche views as a series of baseless and seditious prosecutions and impeachments of Trump. The acting attorney general has created a special position for diGenova with the title "counselor to the attorney general."

DiGenova has moved into an office in Fort Pierce, Fla., where one federal grand jury is actively hearing evidence in the case. Another grand jury has been convened in Miami, where Jason Reding Quinones, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, is based. He is said to be working closely with diGenova.

DiGenova and his team are confident that the jury pool and judges in South Florida will give them a fair hearing, as opposed to Washington, D.C., where they are no longer utilizing a third grand jury.

"It's dead in D.C. Everything is in South Florida now," a red jurisdiction more sympathetic to Trump, said a senior U.S. official briefed on the matter.

As a former federal prosecutor and independent counsel, diGenova is known for using grand juries, which are comprised of 16 to 23 citizens who hear a prosecutor's case, to aggressively collect evidence by issuing subpoenas for documents and witnesses.

The sources say a fresh round of grand jury subpoenas is expected to go out in early July.

New Documents & Whistleblowers

These well-placed sources also say that diGenova has cultivated several new witnesses, including whistleblowers from the intelligence community and the FBI, and that his team has also uncovered significant new evidence, including a massive FBI document spanning several hundred pages that reportedly exposes new malfeasance in the bureau's probe of Trump's alleged ties to Russia, codenamed Crossfire Hurricane, which was begun before the 2016 election.

They note that diGenova traveled to D.C. earlier this month to meet with both Blanche and FBI Director Kash Patel to discuss the newly discovered internal FBI document and map out new investigative leads as well as a new overall case strategy.

Led by former FBI chief Comey, Crossfire investigators targeted the 2016 Trump campaign for colluding with the Kremlin and illegally wiretapped at least one Trump adviser based on political opposition research from the Hillary Clinton campaign. After Trump won the election, the same now-debunked research, known as the Steele dossier, was used by Comey and then-CIA Director John Brennan in a U.S. intelligence report known as the "ICA" to recast his victory as the product of Kremlin espionage.

By laundering the dossier - the heart of the Russia collusion scheme - through the U.S. intelligence community, the outgoing Obama administration was able to give it a gloss of credibility. By design, this false information made its way into the media, which in turn prompted Congress to open inquiries and the DOJ to appoint Robert Mueller as special counsel to continue the investigation on a larger scale. DiGenova, sources say, is examining whether Mueller's team engaged in prosecutorial abuses against Trump officials and associates.

Comey and Brennan were subpoenaed earlier this year regarding their roles in the ICA and are key targets in the conspiracy investigation. Both have denied any wrongdoing, publicly and through their lawyers.

Now in command of the entire investigation, diGenova has his own budget and is rapidly "staffing up" office, including hiring a large team of deputy prosecutors, investigators, analysts, and researchers, said a DOJ official with eyes into his operation.

The Justice Department official told RCI that his Florida team will not move forward with indictments without confidence that they can prevail in a court of law.

"We're not going to bring indictments just to make ourselves feel good only to lose and give the bad guys a victory," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter. "So it's a lot of work. But that's what we're doing."

Currently, no indictments are under seal, the official said.

Past Probes

The official said that diGenova's team now has "all the files" collected by Special Counsel John Durham, who conducted a multiyear criminal investigation of the FBI's Russia probe. These include long-sought notes from several hours of interviews with Brennan about his role in the ICA and Crossfire Hurricane.

One DOJ official told RCI that diGenova's investigation is necessary, in part, because Durham "took a dive." The official noted that Durham only secured a single conviction during his four-year probe - of former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to a felony false-statement offense in connection with his admittedly falsifying government records in pursuit of a wiretap on former Trump adviser Carter Page.

Although Durham sought up to six months in prison, arguing that Clinesmith, a liberal Democrat, acted out of "political or personal bias" against Trump, D.C. District Judge Jeb Boasberg spared him any jail time and let him work off his probationary sentence by helping edit a D.C. homeless-advocacy journal he followed. The D.C. Bar reinstated his law license soon after.

Trump's supporters say Durham's record shows he did not pursue his investigation vigorously, while Trump's critics say his largely dead-end case proves the Russia probe was justified and done by the book.

"DiGenova has been appointed to investigate a made-up deep-state plot," said Harvard attorney and legal analyst Anna Bower.

While the legal strategy may have changed, diGenova and his team are still following the same theory of the case and pursuing potential charges under the same conspiracy statutes, the sources say - namely Sections 371 and 242 of the U.S. criminal code.

Weaponizing Justice

They believe high-ranking officials in the Obama and Biden administrations, acting under color of law, unlawfully weaponized the U.S. justice system and intelligence community against Trump and his advisers in a seditious plot to derail his candidacy and presidency and subvert the will of the American electorate.

Adding to the case's complexity is the FBI's disparate treatment of Hillary Clinton, who was personally exonerated by Comey in the bureau's investigation of her emails, codenamed Midyear Exam. The move cleared legal hurdles for her just weeks before her nomination at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. At the same time, recently declassified FBI documents reveal that Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe, scuttled the FBI's Clinton Foundation probe and other investigations tied to Clinton.

Soon after letting Clinton off the hook, according to the operating theory of the case, they opened the Crossfire Hurricane espionage case on Trump as an alleged "insurance policy" in the unlikely event that Clinton lost the election, suggesting an illegal plan to abuse law enforcement to frame the Republican candidate. Recently declassified documents reveal Comey was aware of the Clinton plan to set up Trump as a Russian conspirator. Nonetheless, the FBI went after Trump based on a narrative they knew to be politically motivated and most likely bogus, which proved to be the case.

The sources confirmed that diGenova and his team are looking closely at the FBI's apparent double standard of justice employed during the 2016 campaign. And they have already found "fertile ground" there for possible conspiracy charges.

Another central focus of diGenova's team, according to an insider briefed on the matter, is the Obama-ordered ICA and the seeming political manufacturing of U.S. intelligence to frame the incoming president as a Kremlin puppet in early 2017.

The intelligence assessment's post-election conclusion that Russia interfered in the election to help Trump, which happened to be the key allegation of the Clinton-funded dossier, contradicted the intelligence community's own pre-election finding that Russia had not favored Trump and instead sought to sow discord in the American electoral process.

Comey and Brennan pushed for inclusion of the dossier in the ICA over the objections of career analysts.

In addition to Comey and Brennan, a Florida grand jury has subpoenaed McCabe's top aide, Lisa Page, and Peter Strzok, the counterintelligence official who led the Crossfire probe and who also interacted with the CIA during the drafting of the ICA. Both have maintained their innocence.

Also in the crosshairs, the sources say, is James Clapper, who spearheaded the ICA as former President Obama's intelligence czar and who has received a subpoena. So, too, is Lisa Monaco, who served as a top Obama aide in the White House before former President Biden appointed her deputy AG, where she oversaw the raid of Mar-a-Lago. Neither responded to requests for comment.

Persons of Interest

Key witnesses and subjects in the Florida-based grand jury investigations, the sources say, include: FBI Supervisory Intelligence Analyst Brian Auten, who was instrumental in several Trump-related investigations and rubber-stamped the dossier's use in applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants targeting Carter Page; Celeste Wallander, a top Obama White House aide and Russian analyst later appointed to the Pentagon by President Biden; former CIA analyst and Biden aide Eric Ciaramella, who secretly worked with then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) on the first impeachment of Trump as the so-called "anonymous whistleblower;" former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who worked with Ciaramella and Schiff to facilitate the first impeachment; former Clapper aide Vinh Nguyen, who helped craft the sections of the ICA dealing with Russian cyber threats; and former National Security Agency Director Adm. Mike Rogers, who clashed with Brennan and Clapper during the manufacturing of the ICA.

As a cooperating witness, Rogers has already told investigators some alarming new information, according to the sources. In April, ODNI issued criminal referrals to DOJ for both Ciaramella and Atkinson over their role in the first Trump impeachment concerning Ukraine in 2019.

DiGenova, who is licensed to practice law in D.C. but not Florida, won't likely argue any cases in court and will assume a supervisory role as cases are litigated. A Republican, diGenova got his start in Washington in the 1970s as a lawyer working on the Church Committee, a select Senate committee tasked with investigating CIA and FBI abuses. In the 1980s, he served as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, where he supervised numerous public corruption and national security cases and earned a reputation as a results-oriented prosecutor.

In 1992, diGenova was appointed independent counsel to investigate the Bush administration's possibly illegal search of Bill Clinton's passport. After two years on the case, he brought no criminal charges. In 1996, he and his wife founded the diGenova & Toensing law firm in Washington.

At 81, the gravel-voiced, mustachioed diGenova still appears spry. Colleagues told RCI they are cautiously optimistic that he will get results.

"He is totally sharp and hard-charging," said DOJ Pardon Attorney Ed Martin, who until recently also ran the anti-weaponization task force at DOJ.

However, the clock is ticking. DiGenova will have to secure convictions or guilty pleas before January 2029, when a Democratic administration could take over the DOJ and quash any indictments and prosecutions.

The DOJ official close to diGenova's office said the appointment of a special prosecutor to ride herd on the wide-ranging investigation should have been done a year ago, but then-Attorney General Pam Bondi was reluctant to take such risks.

"She was frightened by the entire thing," he said. "She was way out of her depth."

RCI has reached out to Bondi for comment. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami did not respond to requests for a statement.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 16:20

Apple Wants To Buy Memory From China As Soaring Chip Prices Spark Inflation Shock

Last Thursday, in the aftermath of Apple's biggest one day plunge since Liberation Day, and second biggest single-day drop ever...

.... when the company lost over a quarter trillion dollars in market cap after the company's unprecedented price increase announcement  which for some products was as much as 50% as Apple decided to pass on soaring component costs to consumers, following similar moves from other consumer electronics companies....

...  and which Apple blamed on "unsustainable" prices by the memory cartel - namely SK Hynix, Samsung, Micron and Sandisk - who have been flooded with unprecedented demand from hyperscalers (freshly funded with hundreds of billions in newly-issued investment grade debt) we predicted that "China's memory makers are waiting by the phone" for a disgruntled Tim Cook to call, demanding bulk, cheaper RAM.

*APPLE SHARES CLOSE DOWN 6.1% IN BIGGEST DROP SINCE APRIL 2025

China's memory makers are waiting by the phone

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 25, 2026

To be sure, Apple wasn't alone: just hours later Microsoft also announced it was raising Xbox prices, in effect launching an avalanche of memory-driven price increases across the industry, now that it has been normalized to pass on soaring memory prices to consumers.

This, in turn, takes place following a series of reports - initially on this website almost a month ago which showed that the recent surge in core inflation is largely due to runaway chip/memory prices as Apple has since confirmed...

At what point does Trump start raging at soaring memory prices

PPI Electronic Components is pulling entire core index higher pic.twitter.com/v9ufHmx0gG

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 11, 2026

... followed last week by the WSJ also joining the chorus by reporting that "the Data-Center Boom is sparking a third wave of inflation."

Fast forward to this morning when with AI stocks tumbling as "check/capex payers", including AAPL, get crushed, while "check/capex receivers" soar...

Hyperscalers vs Chips pic.twitter.com/qtYEDM8lQ7

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 25, 2026

... the abovementioned Chinese memory makers did not have long to wait, and overnight the FT reported that Apple is lobbying the Trump administration for clearance to buy memory chips from CXMT, a Chinese company that the Pentagon as put on a blacklist because of alleged connections to the People’s Liberation Army. 

As we expected, the iPhone maker has been waging a lobbying campaign to get the White House’s blessing in order to ease the financial pressure of the rise in memory chip prices. A person told the FT that Apple approached the commerce department more than a month ago, but the tech company has been targeting other officials across the administration and allies in Washington.

Apple is not barred from buying chips from China's DDR giant CXMT, or YMTC, another Chinese memory chipmaker which focuses on NAND memory and has been growing its market share aggressively, having caught up to Sandisk, and set to become the world's 3rd largest maker of flash memory as soon as this quarter 

But the Pentagon has put both companies on its Chinese Military Company blacklist. The so-called 1260H list contains dozens of Chinese groups with alleged ties to the PLA that undermine US national security.

Securing CXMT as a memory supplier would help remedy a situation in which the tech giant is being squeezed by its own suppliers, a position in which Apple has never been before .

The lobbying campaign comes after President Donald Trump met his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Beijing last month. Ahead of the summit, and in the months ahead of their previous meeting in South Korea in October, the US has held back from introducing new technology-related export controls that would affect Chinese companies.

As the FT notes, the Pentagon’s 1260H list creates reputational risk for companies, but in most cases it has no legal ramifications. We said as much just hours earlier when we said that those "worried about Chinese memory roadblocks by the US govt to ease memory inflation forget Trump undid 40 years of Iranian sanctions to lower the price of oil." And now that oil price inflation is contained, Trump has memory-driven cost-push inflation to fix ahead of the midterms, and whether he wants to or not, the only option his Admin has - besides imposing a price ceiling on memory (which may still come) - is to agree with Apple's request.

Last year, when memory prices were far lower and domestic producers did not have their customers by the throat with record chip prices and chip inflation was not yet the biggest driver of core prices, the commerce department added CXMT to a package of Chinese groups it intended to place on a trade blacklist called the “Entity List”. But the White House told it to hold off on new export controls because the administration was in the middle of tough negotiations with China to try to reach a truce in the trade war.

In any case, the FT notes that it remains unclear if Apple would get any guarantee from the administration, especially a promise that the US would not later put CXMT on the Entity List. Trump last year agreed to let Nvidia sell advanced H200 chips to China, a move many of his officials opposed.

In February, the Pentagon updated the 1260H list before withdrawing it within an hour. Several people said it was removed because the White House was angry that someone at the Pentagon had taken CXMT and YMTC off the list. When the Pentagon re-released it this month, both of the Chinese memory chip manufacturers had been reinstated.

“Apple choosing to partner with a Chinese military company would be a grave mistake,” John Moolenaar, the Republican chair of the House China committee, told the FT. However, he expect that the Republican will rapidly change his tune once there is public outcry in a the next few weeks against soaring electronic component prices, which will ultimately be blamed on runaway memory costs. 

“Helping the [Chinese Communist Party] succeed in its plans to dominate critical supply chains will make our country’s tech industry and economy more dependent on China at a time when we must build secure tech supply chains with our allies,” Moolenaar said, seemingly unaware that by not using Chinese components, he is allowing South Korea's memory cartel dictate not only US inflation but also the country's monetary policy, now that even Fed officials are pointing to AI/memory prices as key inflation drivers.

• *KASHKARI: INFLATION DRIVEN BY SUPPLY ISSUES, INCLUDING AI-BUILD

Readers may recall that back in 2022 - when the world's faced another major surge in chip and component prices due to the logistical nightmare following covid - Apple faced a backlash when it considered buying memory chips from YMTC for iPhones to be sold in China. Marco Rubio, who was then the top Republican on the Senate intelligence committee, told the FT that “Apple was playing with fire”. Back then Rubio added that Apple would be “subject to scrutiny like it has never seen from the federal government” if it proceeded to procure YMTC chips. However, back in 2022, memory hadn't emerged as the biggest source of rising core inflation. It has now, and should Rubio refuse to pivot on his position, he would promptly become the target of public ire over surging consumer goods prices. 

Yet even with Tim Cook, and soon all other US consumer electronics products makers pushing hard for alternative memory sources, the memory lobby won't give up easily on the (temporary) oligopolistic position the commodity makers have achieved. “It makes no sense for the administration to decouple America’s reliance on critical minerals from China, only to approve new dependencies in a field as critical as AI,” said Michael Sobolik, a security expert at the Hudson Institute. 

One former official warned the US risked losing another industry by letting Apple buy memory from a group that receives Chinese subsidies. “Trump can show the courage to keep American memory alive for our security and our competitiveness or pour it down the drain so [Apple chief executive] Tim Cook can squeeze out a few more points of margin.”

It wouldn't surprise us if the "unnamed former official" is on South Korea's payroll because while China is still a modest actor in the memory space, the actual giants are all located in South Korea: Apple relies on US chipmaker Micron in addition to South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix for the DRAM memory used in its devices.

Meanwhile, in advance of a historic flood of orders that could send its market cap soaring, we reported that China's DRAM giant CXMT has received regulatory approval to list in Shanghai for the largest mainland IPO since 2022 as the Chinese national champion positions itself to challenge the DRam incumbents. The IPO of its domestic NAND peer, YMCT, is set to follow just weeks later 

Oh, and for those confused what happens when a commodity price surges, the post-covid case study should serve well: in 2023, DRAM prices because of a supply glut. This was a boon for buyers such as Apple, which was able to secure massive amounts of cheap inventory. 

But the AI boom of the past three years has seen a reversal in fortunes for the memory suppliers. As hyperscalers spent hundreds of billions of dollars for AI infrastructure, demand for advanced DRam — known as HBM — has led to a protracted shortage of traditional memory for consumer electronics. 

However, now that the market has shown it will no longer reward ridiculous amounts of hyperscaler capex spending - a U-turn from the market's reaction function for much of the past year - especially now that most of the big chip spenders no longer generatepositive cash flow and forced to issue billions in new debt for every incremental order of memory...

... in the end it won't be Trump that decides the fate of memory prices: it will be hyperscalers' own shareholders who will eagerly punish their management teams for incremental capex spending, forcing these companies to come up with new and creative ways to use and optimize existing Ram (likely in the form of many more Software-driven TurboQuant moments) to come up with more efficient and faster models.

In any case, after soaring into the stratosphere for the past year courtesy of all Hyperscaler free cash flow and hundreds of billions in on and off balance sheet debt, the party is finally ending and the memory bubble is about to burst. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 15:10

Ukraine Closes Week Of Record Drone Attacks On Russia By Hitting Important Weapons Plant

Ukraine announced Saturday that it used its Flamingo cruise missiles overnight to strike Russia's Titan-Barrikady weapons plant, which reportedly manufactures parts for its powerful Oreshnik missile.

The military plant is in Volgograd, formerly Stalingrad, which is a major industrial city in southwest Russia. Writing on X, President Zelensky described it as a "major industrial complex" where Russia "produces artillery systems and specialized military equipment, including components for missile launch systems."

Getty Images

"Every Russian defense facility involved in the war against Ukraine is a legitimate target for our long-range strikes," he wrote.

The Associated Press reports, "Volgograd Gov. Andrei Bocharov confirmed an attack on a business in the region’s Krasnooktyabrsky district, saying 10 people had been wounded and taken to a hospital. He said production facilities at the site were damaged but did not identify the company."

Additionally, "Ukraine's state security service said Saturday morning that Ukrainian forces also struck an oil pumping facility in Russia’s Vladimir region that supplies fuel to Moscow, for the second time this month."

But on the other side of the border, Ukrainian media reports that Russia was also busy with now nightly airstrikes:

Russian forces targeted production facilities belonging to the Naftogaz Group, Ukraine's largest national oil and gas company, in the Poltava and Kharkiv regions.

The barrage of attacks included 129 drones, of which 113 were destroyed or jammed by Ukrainian forces, Ukrainian media reported.

The Russian overnight attacks on Ukraine killed two people and injuring more than 20, according to state officials.

At a moment much of the globe's attention remains fixated on Iran and the fate of energy shipping through the largely blocked Strait of Hormuz, the Ukraine war is rapidly escalating.

Footage shows Ukrainian FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile launches and precision strikes on the Titan-Barrikady Plant in Volgograd, Russia.

Titan-Barrikady, officially known as JSC Federal Scientific and Production Center "Titan-Barrikady," is responsible for producing heavy… pic.twitter.com/xTYF2k2dLy

— OSINTWarfare (@OSINTWarfare) June 27, 2026

Ukrainian leadership has issued some astounding stats on the escalation on its side of the border:

Russia attacked Ukraine with 1,400 drones and 1,500 guided bombs

President Volodymyr Zelensky stated on Saturday, June 27, that Russian forces deployed approximately 1,400 attack drones, 1,500 guided aerial bombs, and 19 missiles of various types, including ballistic missiles, against Ukraine over the past week.

In a statement published on Telegram, Zelensky noted that 15 Ukrainian regions were subjected to Russian attacks during the seven-day period. He highlighted that the cities of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Kharkiv, and Sumy faced near-daily bombardment.

But it also over the past week has sent projectiles into Russia in the thousands. Ukraine's asymmetric warfare strategy against Russia's much-larger and better armed military machine has put Kiev in significantly better position - in terms of potential negotiating leverage - than the status of a year or so ago.

Russian forces still have the upper-hand on the front line in the east, but the pain clearly being inflicted on Russia's economy can't be ignored at this point. There are reports of fuel shortages across dozens of regions and especially in Crimea over the past several days.

Multiple Ukrainian FP-5 “Flamingo” Cruise Missiles slam into the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology’s “Titan-Barrikady” Defense Plant, which designs and produces parts for artillery and ballistic missile launchers, in the Southern Russian city of Volgograd. pic.twitter.com/pwTrnuHVL4

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) June 27, 2026

President Trump has lately suggested that Ukraine is doing well in the war, or at least much better than it once was. Kiev now feels the pressure to keep this narrative going, also so it can attract more and more weapons and intelligence help. But at some point Russia will feel it necessary to strongly reassert its red lines. This could come in the form of another massive escalation, and against 'decision-making centers'.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 14:35

Supreme Court's Alito Offers Unusual Response To Sotomayor's Dissent In Immigration Case

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

At a recent Supreme Court sitting, Justice Samuel Alito took the unusual step of responding from the bench to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's spoken dissent from an immigration-related opinion he wrote.

This combination photo shows Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Sept 16, 2024, in New York, left, and Justice Samuel Alito in Rome, Sept. 20, 2025. AP Photo

The June 25 incident took place in the final days of the current court's session, as the justices try to issue opinions in remaining cases before the court's summer recess, which typically begins before the Fourth of July.

Alito read aloud a summary of the majority opinion in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado. The 6-3 decision ruled that the government can turn away asylum-seekers at the border, clarifying a law that requires individuals to be inspected when they arrive in the United States.

Sotomayor followed, reading a summary of her dissenting opinion aloud.

Sotomayor said many asylum seekers face a challenging journey and recounted that after the United States and other countries turned back a ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany in 1939, about 250 of those passengers died later in the Holocaust.

Sotomayor said the majority's opinion here would allow the Trump administration to prevent people from applying for asylum at the border, and that this would lead to more deaths. The decision "regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty," she said.

In her written dissent, Sotomayor stated, "more people will be forced to walk along the U.S.-Mexico border in dangerous conditions, trying to find a port that will inspect them."

Sotomayor's spoken dissent seemed to come as a surprise for Alito, who responded extemporaneously to it. He appeared frustrated, saying he would have said more during the court sitting and provided more details if he had known she planned to speak.

For the court's majority, Alito said, the case was about whether border officials can delay asylum seekers' entry into the United States "until they can be processed in a safe and orderly way."

The justice said that the policy at the center of the case had been used under both the Obama and Trump administrations. "I won't add anything more to that," he said.

A group of 13 asylum-seekers, led by immigrants' rights group Al Otro Lado, or To the Other Side, had filed suit in 2017 against the government's "metering" policy. That policy let border agents - usually at U.S. ports of entry - turn away asylum-seekers to avoid overcrowding of border facilities.

A federal law says that "any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States ... may apply for asylum," regardless of legal status.

In the majority opinion, Alito wrote: "This case presents a straightforward question: whether an alien who seeks to enter the United States from Mexico 'arrives in the United States' when he or she is still in Mexico.

"In the decision below, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit answered 'yes.' That is wrong."

Tensions in Public View

This was not the first time tensions between Supreme Court justices have been on public display.

In March, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson publicly clashed over the court's various emergency orders that have allowed President Donald Trump to pursue his policy agenda.

Lower courts have stifled Trump's policies by issuing orders blocking some of them. The Supreme Court has often provided emergency relief by lifting those orders.

Jackson said the Supreme Court is "creating a kind of warped" legal process by intervening at an early stage of a case and basically predicting the outcome before the arguments are developed fully.

"The administration is making new policy ... and then insisting the new policy take effect immediately, before the challenge is decided," Jackson said. "This uptick in the court's willingness to get involved in cases on the emergency docket is a real unfortunate problem."

Kavanaugh said the Supreme Court is only doing its job by addressing the emergency applications filed.

The Department of Justice's rush to the Supreme Court didn't begin during the Trump administration, the justice said. He said that as it becomes more difficult to enact legislation through Congress, administrations "push the envelope in regulations."

"Some are lawful, some are not," he said.

Sotomayor also made a rare public apology in April to Kavanaugh for making what she called "hurtful comments."

She had previously said during a speech at a law school that a colleague "probably doesn't really know any person who works by the hour."

Culture of Collegiality

Supreme Court justices have publicly stated that members of the nation's highest court are friendly and civil in their dealings with each other and have eschewed partisanship.

Chief Justice John Roberts said in May 2023 that "there has never been a voice raised in anger in our conference room," referring to the chamber in which justices discuss and vote on pending cases.

"Our court consists of nine appointees by four presidents. We deal with some of the most controversial issues in the country, yet we maintain collegial relations with each other," he said.

Sotomayor and Justice Amy Coney Barrett attempted to distance themselves from political parties and particular presidents in February of this year, with Sotomayor calling parties "the worst thing" to happen to the judiciary.

"They began to adopt our buzzwords as buzzwords - some of the discussions we were having like on originalism and plain text and things like that," Sotomayor said. "But instead of discussing those terms with respect to approaches that made sense and why - with all the nuances that those approaches contain - they just began to label people according to the buzzwords."

Barrett said, "We're not Obama judges and Trump judges, but we're also not Democratic judges or Republican judges."

"We don't sit on opposite sides of the aisle," she said. "We all wear the same color of black robe ... our loyalty lies all to the Constitution and to the court."

Barrett said even though the court is often described as "deeply divided," the vast majority of cases lead to unanimous or close-to-unanimous decisions.

Barrett likened the court to a "family" in which the justices offer small acts of kindness to promote a culture of collegiality.

She said it is a Supreme Court tradition for the second most junior justice to throw a party for the new justice who is entering. Kavanaugh, she said, threw a party for her, while she threw one for Jackson.

Sam Dorman, Stacy Robinson, and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 14:00

Trump Shares New US Passport Design On Truth Social

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Friday shared on social media a rendering of what he said was the new U.S. passport design, underscoring a message of welcome paired with a call for good behavior while visiting.

The new U.S. passport design shared by President Donald Trump on his Truth Social on June 26, 2026. @realDonaldTrump via Truth Social

"The U.S.A.'s New Passport, which says, 'Welcome, but be good!'" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post, which included a visual of the passport.

The post lands as the State Department progresses with plans for a limited number of passports to mark the nation's 250th anniversary of independence. The documents are scheduled to be released in July.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said in a statement that the department would release "a limited number of specially designed U.S. passports to commemorate this historic occasion."

"These passports will feature customized artwork and enhanced imagery while maintaining the same security features that make the U.S. passport the most secure documents in the world," Pigott said.

A mockup previously shared by the White House displays the interior page featuring an image of Trump and his signature in gold. The back cover shows the "Declaration of Independence" painting by John Trumbull.

"Patriot passport unlocked. Limited edition. Stamped for America 250," the White House said in its post announcing the concept.

Trump's Friday post presents a rendering in line with the commemorative design being prepared. The limited-edition passports will feature all existing security features of standard U.S. passports.

The effort forms part of wider commemorations for the nation's 250th anniversary. Last year, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said the department would issue new commemorative park passes this year to mark the nation's 250th anniversary. The annual passes feature images of George Washington and Trump. Military passes show a photo of Trump saluting troops.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts authorized a final design for a commemorative coin featuring Trump's image to mark the nation's anniversary.

"As we approach our 250th birthday, we are thrilled to prepare coins that represent the enduring spirit of our country and democracy, and there is no profile more emblematic for the front of such coins than that of our serving President, Donald J. Trump," Treasurer Brandon Beach said in a statement on March 20.

The Treasury Department also revealed on March 26 that Trump's signature would appear alongside that of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on future U.S. paper currency in honor of the 250th anniversary.

"There is no more powerful way to recognize the historic achievements of our great country and President Donald J. Trump than U.S dollar bills bearing his name, and it is only appropriate that this historic currency be issued at the Semiquincentennial," Bessent said.

Current U.S. passports include a double-page depiction of Mount Rushmore in South Dakota showing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln.

Other images include the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell, and Independence Hall in Philadelphia, as well as scenes of the Great Plains, mountains, and islands. Quotations from Martin Luther King Jr. and several past presidents also appear.

Trump's post comes days ahead of the July 4 anniversary date and celebrations across the country.

The State Department has not specified the exact number of limited-edition passports that will be produced or the precise distribution process beyond the July timeframe.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 12:50

Trump Admin Allows Release Of Anthropic's Mythos To Certain US Companies

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

American artificial intelligence company Anthropic said on June 26 that the government has authorized it to release Claude Mythos 5, its most advanced AI model, to certain U.S. organizations, reversing a previous order that suspended access over security concerns.

Anthropic logo is seen in an illustration photo. Dado Ruvic/Reuters

The Trump administration on June 12 issued an export control directive to suspend access to Mythos 5 and Fable 5 - which shares the same underlying model as Mythos 5 but was designed for general use.

Anthropic said at the time that the government believed it had identified a method of jailbreaking Fable 5. Jailbreaking is the process of exploiting vulnerabilities to circumvent a software's built-in safety guardrails.

In the latest development, Anthropic said the government had informed it that Mythos 5 could be redeployed to "a small group of cyber defenders and infrastructure providers."

"We are working to provision the approved set of providers and restore their access to Mythos 5 as quickly as possible," an Anthropic spokesperson said in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times.

"We are pleased to see this progress and continue to work with the government to expand access to Mythos 5 and make Fable 5 available for general use again."

The U.S. Department of Commerce did not extend that approval to Fable 5.

The department informed Anthropic of the change in a letter dated June 26, which was obtained by The Epoch Times.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in the letter that he has concluded that "appropriate safeguards are in place to permit certain trusted partners to access the Claude Mythos 5 model."

"Since the issuance of my June 12 letter, Anthropic has worked with the U.S. government to address risks associated with the covered models. These efforts have yielded significant progress," he wrote.

Lutnick said that Anthropic has committed to working with the government to develop protocols and standards for the AI models. He did not specify how many companies would be granted access to Mythos 5 or the criteria for selecting them.

Meanwhile, OpenAI also announced on June 26 the preview release of its new model, GPT-5.6, which will be limited to a small group of users approved by the Trump administration.

The Pentagon designated Anthropic as a supply-chain risk in March after the company refused to change the user policy for its Claude model to grant the government unrestricted access, citing concerns that the technology could be used for mass surveillance or for fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon said in February that it had no intention to use AI for such purposes and that it only asked Anthropic to allow it to use Claude models for "all lawful purposes."

The designation, imposed under a federal law designed to protect military systems from foreign sabotage, prevents the company from doing business with the federal government and its contractors.

Kimberly Hayek contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 11:40

Hezbollah Supporters Block Roads, Encircle Govt Buildings In Beirut Over Israel Deal: 'They Sold Us Out'

Mass protests broke out in Beirut on Friday into Saturday, with supporters of Hezbollah voicing their outrage at the Lebanese government having just signed a 'trilateral peace framework' with Israel and the United States, despite the IDF occupation of southern territory and sporadic Israeli bombings persisting. 

Hundreds of motorcycle-riding supporters were also seen circling streets through central Beirut, near the parliament building and along airport road. In some cases protesters blocked roads near sensitive government buildings, and were seen burning tires. The national army has set up checkpoints, seeking to return order, but in some cases didn't immediately move to disperse the protests.

via AFP

"We certainly condemn and denounce this shameful agreement," a 30-year old protesters from Blida, a town in southern Lebanon that Israel has occupied for months, told the NY Times. According to more:

One criticism of the preliminary deal is that the timeline for Israel’s withdrawal is not fixed, instead being based on how quickly Hezbollah can be disarmed. "The enemy is being granted freedom of movement and the ability to make whatever decisions it wants in the south," Mr. Kassem said.

Washington has long been seeking to push Hezbollah's influence out of national politics, and to ultimately see the Iran-backed group disarmed and its power neutered.

The protester's have in turn exclaimed: 

"They sold us out!"

The Trump administration and Israel have been hailing it as 'historic' - also as the US is seeking to ensure the conflict in Lebanon won't derail the broader peace deal with Iran, toward getting the Strait of Hormuz open again.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has meanwhile in new denunciatory words on Saturday charged that Lebanon's government has given legitimacy to Israel's "occupation for many years to come" by signing the deal.

"This could even lead to the annexation of these lands to the Zionist entity," Qassem said. "We say to the Lebanese authorities: It is time for you to retract your sins that are destroying Lebanon."

The Hezbollah Secretary-General vowed to remain "ready to cooperate and stand together for the sovereignty of Lebanon, the liberation of its land, the expulsion of the Israeli occupier."

He also said that the US deal links Israel's withdrawal to Hezbollah's disarmament throughout Lebanon, which "is an extremely dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines and makes Lebanon a pawn in the hands of the Israeli enemy."

Beirut right now!
People and motorcycle groups have occupied the roads in Beirut in protest of the Lebanese authorities signing and agreement with Israeli enemy that "legalized " their occupation of South Lebanon and gave legal immunity to Netanyahu regarding his warcrimes. pic.twitter.com/acHBV3dFrb

— Hadi Hoteit | هادي حطيط (@HadiHtt) June 26, 2026

"The authorities are legitimizing the occupation for many years to come, and this could even lead to the annexation of these lands to the Zionist entity. Any agreement must be confined to the area south of the Litani River," he added, stressing the Shia paramilitary group's resistance to these developments will be steadfast.

Hezbollah had all along refused to be at the table for the Washington-hosted talks, and it accused Israel of a war of aggression on Lebanese territory, with an aim to expand Israel's borders.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 11:05

Friedman Was Right, Just Mostly Misquoted...

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Milton Friedman’s famous one-liner that anchors half the inflation debates on financial television leaves out the part where the actual economics live. Once you put it back in, the doomist case gets a lot smaller.

Per Bylund recently wrote a sharp piece for The Daily Economy arguing that CPI and GDP have become Goodhart’s Law in action. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a useful measure. He has a point, and we’ll come back to it. But the bigger problem with the inflation conversation isn’t really about CPI. It’s about the way the famous Milton Friedman inflation quote gets weaponized by people who almost certainly haven’t read past the comma.

The line you always hear is, “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” Full stop. Print money, get inflation, or corporations cause inflation. Then, the doomers grab a chart of M2 and a warning about hyperinflation.

That’s not what Friedman actually said.

What Friedman Actually Said

The complete sentence is,

“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.”

That trailing clause changes everything.

The monetary doomists drop it because it complicates the bumper sticker. But “than in output” is where the real economics is.

Friedman was reasoning from the equation of exchange, MV = PQ. Money times velocity equals prices times real output. It’s an identity, not a theory. Where it gets interesting is when you ask which variable does the work. Friedman’s claim was that, over the long run, sustained changes in the general price level can come only from money growing faster than the economy’s productive capacity. Supply was already inside his framework. A collapse in output with steady money produces the same price effect as money growth with steady output.

So the “supply and demand drives inflation” intuition isn’t competing with Friedman. It’s living inside his model. The question is whether the imbalance persists, which depends on whether monetary policy accommodates it.

The Distinction Everyone Misses

Friedman drew a hard line between relative price changes and sustained inflation. That distinction is what gets lost in the modern debate.

When oil prices spike due to a war, consumers spend more on energy and necessarily less on everything else. Relative prices shift. Energy goes up, discretionary goods come under pressure. The general price level doesn’t have to rise unless monetary policy expands the money available to spend on everything. Without that accommodation, you get a one-time level shift in the price index, and then prices stabilize. That’s not inflation in Friedman’s sense. That’s a relative price adjustment.

This is why Friedman could call inflation “a monetary phenomenon” without being naive about supply shocks. He simply argued that supply shocks alone don’t produce sustained inflation. They produce volatility around a level. The trend in the level comes from the money side.

Here’s the problem with how this gets used today. Both the inflation alarmists and the cable news pundits flatten the distinction. The doomists see any money growth and forecast persistent inflation, ignoring that velocity might collapse and absorb the expansion. The pundits see any price spike and call it inflation, ignoring that without monetary accommodation, it’s likely to fade.

The 1970s are the clearest historical illustration of why both supply and money must be present for sustained inflation. Most people remember the decade as an “oil shock” story, but that’s only half right. CPI was already running hot before the 1973 Arab oil embargo and again before the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Money supply growth had been excessive for years, and interest rates had been held too low. The oil shocks didn’t create inflation out of nothing. They pushed an already-loosened cork out of an already-pressurized bottle. Lacy Hunt has been making essentially this argument about the current setup, and he’s right to flag the parallel. A supply shock landing on top of loose money is the configuration that produces a sustained inflation problem. A supply shock landing on a disciplined monetary base produces a level shift that fades.

Money Has to Grow for the Economy to Grow

Here’s where the doomist case really starts to fall apart. The accusation is that “money printing causes inflation.” But in a modern fiat system, every dollar of money in circulation is debt. Either it’s a commercial bank loan that created a deposit on the other side of the ledger, or it’s government borrowing financed through the banking system. There is no third option.

The Bank of England’s 2014 paper, Money Creation in the Modern Economy, laid this out explicitly. Banks don’t lend out reserves. They create deposits when they make loans, and the reserves are created in parallel. So the entire monetary base is, in a real sense, debt that has to be serviced with growing nominal income.

That has a structural implication that most armchair monetarists miss. If money doesn’t grow, the economy can’t grow either. Real debts (fixed in nominal terms) become heavier as nominal income stagnates. Defaults cascade. Credit contracts. You get 1933, which is exactly what Irving Fisher described in his debt-deflation theory. The system is built to require expansion.

So when someone screams about M2 going up, the relevant question isn’t whether M2 went up. M2 has to go up. The relevant question is whether it went up faster than the economy’s productive capacity could absorb it. That’s the real Friedman test, and it’s a much higher bar than the doomists set.

“In a debt-based system, the question isn’t whether money grew. Money has to grow. The question is whether it grew faster than what the economy can produce.”

Velocity Is the Missing Variable

The other piece almost nobody talks about is velocity. MV = PQ has four variables, not three. And V, the rate at which money circulates through the economy, is wildly unstable. Ignore it, and you get inflation forecasts that look ridiculous in hindsight.

Consider the cleanest natural experiment we’ve ever had. From 2008 to 2020, the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet by trillions through three rounds of quantitative easing. The doomists screamed about hyperinflation for the entire decade. It never came. Why? Because velocity collapsed. Banks parked the new reserves rather than lending them. Consumers deleveraged rather than spent. The money sat still. M went up, but V went down by roughly the same amount, and PQ barely moved.

Then 2020 happened. The Fed expanded the balance sheet again, but this time the government also sent stimulus checks directly into consumer bank accounts. Supply chains broke. Workers stayed home. And velocity, instead of falling, recovered. You had money growing fast, money circulating again, and productive capacity disrupted, all at once. Inflation hit 9.1% by June 2022.

That’s the cleanest example we’ll ever get of why the simple “M2 up means inflation up” framework is incomplete. Inflation emerged when M, V, and the supply constraint on Q all moved in the same direction simultaneously. The doomists were wrong from 2009 to 2020 because they ignored V. The “transitory” crowd was wrong in 2021 because they underestimated how all three would compound.

And now here we are in 2026, with a setup that’s worth watching closely. The Fed restarted bill purchases earlier this year, calling it a technical operation to ease strain in the repo market. Whatever the label, bank lending has surged. Loans and leases are growing at a 10% annualized pace. Commercial and industrial lending is running closer to 20%. Money supply is accelerating again. This is no longer a 2009-to-2020 regime where money sits idle on bank balance sheets.

The money is being put to work, the velocity question is firmly on the table, and the Treasury’s pivot to short-term bill issuance is forcing the Fed to operate at the short end of the curve whether it wants to or not. That’s the setup Friedman would have flagged. Money plus velocity plus a fiscal-monetary configuration that looks an awful lot like accommodation.

The Composition of Credit Matters More Than the Quantity

Beyond velocity, there’s a second piece that the bumper-sticker monetarism completely misses. Where the credit flows matters as much as how much credit gets created.

A dollar lent to build a factory expands future productive capacity, but a dollar lent to fund a stock buyback inflates current asset prices without expanding the economy’s productive capacity. A dollar lent to a consumer for a vacation expands current consumption without leaving any productive residue. Same dollar, same “money creation,” very different downstream effect.

The Austrians, including the school from which Bylund writes, have a real point here that monetarists routinely flatten. When credit funds are invested in malinvestment rather than productive capital, you can have apparent “growth” that’s really just hollowing out the productive base while inflating asset prices. Most of the post-2008 era worked exactly like this. Credit aggregates exploded, but the flow disproportionately went into financial assets, real estate, and corporate balance-sheet engineering. Consumer prices didn’t move much. Asset prices went vertical. That’s not inflation in the CPI sense. But it’s also not “growth” in any meaningful sense either.

The current AI capex boom is the live test of this framework. The bank lending surging through the financial system right now appears to be funding data centers, chip fabs, power infrastructure, and the related buildout. That’s productive credit by definition, as it expands future capacity to produce. If that’s what’s happening, the inflation impact of the recent money growth should be more muted than the simple M2 chart suggests, because Q is being expanded alongside M.

If, on the other hand, a large share of this credit is funding speculative valuations rather than real capacity, you get the Austrian outcome. Asset prices go vertical, productive capacity doesn’t expand to match, and the inflation eventually shows up either in consumer prices or in a brutal asset-side reversal. We won’t know which scenario we’re in for another year or two. But the framework tells you exactly what to watch. Track where the credit is landing, not just how much of it is being created.

How Different Schools Define Inflation

The reason these debates feel like everyone is talking past each other is that the underlying definition of inflation differs across schools. The table below lines up where each tradition starts and what it treats as the cause.

That last row brings us back to Bylund. His argument is that CPI and GDP have ceased to be useful measures because they’ve become policy targets. Goodhart’s Law in action. He’s not wrong about that. Price controls don’t fight inflation. They suppress the symptom (measured CPI) while worsening the disease, which is real shortages and capital misallocation. The 1971 Nixon wage-price controls are the textbook case. Government spending that produces no productive output really does inflate GDP without inflating wealth. The Soviet Union had impressive GDP growth on paper for decades before it collapsed because the “output” wasn’t producing things anyone valued.

So far, so good. But here’s where the critique runs into a wall. Bylund attacks the measures without proposing how policymakers, central banks, investors, or ordinary readers should actually operate without them. “Just understand the underlying concept better” isn’t operational. The Fed has to make decisions, allocators have to deploy capital, and investors have to make portfolio choices. You can’t run a $27 trillion economy on Austrian methodological purity.

Yes, CPI is flawed. Every serious economist knows it, but the answer isn’t to abandon measurement. It’s about using multiple measures rigorously, understanding their limitations, and triangulating. PCE, trimmed-mean CPI, sticky-price CPI, the Cleveland Fed’s median CPI, and M2 velocity-adjusted measures of money. These exist precisely because thoughtful people know any single number is insufficient. The “experts” Bylund attacks for treating CPI as ground truth are largely a strawman of cable news pundits and political talking points, not the actual analytical community.

What This Means for Investors

The bottom line is that both ends of the inflation debate are wrong in mirror-image ways. The doomists who quote Friedman as “money printer go brrr” stripped away the second half of his sentence, ignored velocity, and missed a decade of disinflation that should have updated their model. The CPI-is-everything crowd ignored the monetary side and got blindsided in 2021 by an inflation surge they kept calling transitory.

The synthesis that actually survives contact with the data is this. Sustained inflation requires money and velocity growing faster than productive capacity. In a debt-based system, money has to grow, so monetary expansion alone isn’t a signal of anything. The real signal is when the growth of money times velocity decouples from the growth of real output. That’s the Friedman test as he actually wrote it, and it’s still the right test.

For portfolios, this means that you should NOT:

• React to M2 data in isolation; look at M2 times velocity together.
• React to single CPI prints, look at the trimmed mean, and the sticky components.
• Assume government spending creates growth just because it shows up in GDP, ask whether it actually expanded productive capacity or just shuffled financial claims.
• Treat the measures as imperfect signals, not as ground truth, but don’t pretend you can invest without them.

There’s one more thing worth flagging for 2026. The Treasury is now funding a deepening deficit by tilting heavily toward short-term bill issuance, with the share of bills in total outstanding debt exceeding the 20% ceiling the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee recommends. When the borrower of last resort floods the short end of the curve, the central bank is pulled into providing liquidity there, whether it wants to or not.

That’s the textbook definition of fiscal dominance, and it’s the configuration that turns a discretionary central bank into an accommodator. Combine that with the bank lending surge and the AI-driven credit boom, and the relevant question for investors isn’t whether the Fed will tighten policy. The relevant question is whether the fiscal setup will leave the Fed any room to tighten in the first place.

That’s how you take Bylund’s Goodhart critique seriously without throwing out the analytical toolkit. And it’s how you read Friedman without becoming a caricature of him.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 10:30

Federal Court Clears Way For Gulf Of America Energy Development

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal court has quashed a lawsuit objecting to federal supervision of oil and gas operations in the Gulf of America following the government’s steps of exempting those activities from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citing national security reasons. 

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland decreed the case moot and said it did not hold jurisdiction to continue. The dismissal comes after the Endangered Species Committee’s unanimous March 31 move to exempt all Gulf of America oil and gas operations from the ESA. 

The committee made the decision after the secretary of war concluded an exemption was required for national security reasons, marking the first time the committee has issued an exemption based on national security reasons.

The exemption rescinded the legal foundation for the National Marine Fisheries Service’s 2025 biological opinion and incidental take statement regarding those activities. 

Without underlying ESA requirements to enforce, the documents “retain no legal force,” the Justice Department said Thursday when announcing the court decision. 

“The Endangered Species Committee’s exemption reflects a judgment at the highest levels of government that producing American energy in the Gulf of America is essential to our national security,” Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division said in a statement.

“Today’s decision clears away litigation that threatened development in the Gulf, in furtherance of President Donald J. Trump’s directive to unleash American energy.”

The Endangered Species Committee is composed of six senior federal officials and is chaired by the secretary of the interior. 

Congress empowered the panel to exempt agency actions from Section 7 of the ESA and directed it to grant an exemption whenever the secretary of war finds national security requires it. The exemption now governs the Gulf oil and gas program. ESA rules cannot be deployed to disrupt energy production that the government views as key to the nation, the department said.

Attorneys with the Environment and Natural Resources Division’s Wildlife and Marine Resources Section handled the matter for the government.

The decision marks a significant change in how ESA applies to major energy projects in the Gulf. 

Section 7 generally requires federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service prior to taking actions that could affect endangered or threatened species or their critical habitat. 

The service examines potential impacts and, if appropriate, issues a biological opinion and an incidental take statement to allow limited harm to protected species if steps are taken to minimize effects.

The dismissed lawsuit challenged the 2025 biological opinion and incidental take statement for Gulf oil and gas operations. The exemption nullified those documents as irrelevant to the projects, putting an end to the legal dispute over their validity or sufficiency.

By dismissing the case, the court did not have to issue a ruling on the substance of the environmental claims. 

The result precludes one potential legal case that could have delayed or impacted energy development in the region.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 09:20

Feds Nab Iranian In Montenegro Over Alleged $3.4BN Cyberattack Campaign Targeting US Institutions

In the years leading up to President Trump coming into office and ordering Operation Epic Fury targeting the Islamic Republic for regime change, which failed to accomplish this (early-stated) goal, Iran had frequently been accused of orchestrating major cyberespionage campaigns targeting the United States and its allies.

But rarely was any individual or group apprehended for such alleged cyberattacks, much less was definitive proof uncovered of backing from the Iranian government. But on Friday there has been a reported capture of an Iranian suspected cyber-attacker, said to be behind dozens of significant sabotage attacks on American institutions, mainly of higher learning.

A high-profile international manhunt ended in the coastal town of Kotor on Thursday, as Montenegrin police, reportedly acting on an FBI tip-off, arrested an Iranian-Turkish dual national accused of masterminding a catastrophic, decade-long cyberwar against US infrastructure.

via Reuters

The 39-year-old suspect, identified by authorities only as "A.B.", is wanted by the United States for allegedly orchestrating cyberattacks that inflicted a staggering $3.4 billion in damages.

The suspect is facing a laundry list of charges from a New York court - among them computer fraud, hacking, identity theft, organized crime.

Authorities allege that from 2013 onwards he carried out "massive hacking attacks" systematically targeting American intellectual property. Astoundingly this included more than 150 US universities, which saw their networks infiltrated and proprietary data plundered.

The actions apparently weren't just for profit, as investigators allege the stolen data and compromised university accounts were weaponized "for the benefit of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other Iranian beneficiaries, including universities."

However, it's as yet unclear what evidence exists for this, or the degree to which authorities have found ties to state entities or intelligence - but one can imagine that operations of this scale might likely have had state backing.

The suspect is currently being held ahead of an appearance before a court in the Montenegrin capital, Podgorica, which will ultimately rule on the US extradition request - something which will likely be granted, given the FBI assist to local investigators.

Back in 2018, the Department of Justice unsealed a sweeping indictment that accused nine Iranian nationals of hacking universities and other organizations to steal academic research and data.

🇲🇪🇮🇷🇺🇸 An accused IRGC hacker who targeted 150+ American universities just got arrested, at a beach resort in Montenegro.

The numbers are staggering: $3.4 billion in damage. Stolen credentials allegedly funneled straight to Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

Montenegro police picked… pic.twitter.com/koflMD3q5Q

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) June 26, 2026

So far, US authorities have not specifically indicated whether the latest arrest is connected to that prior case, leaving open the question of whether "A.B." was a lone operator or part of a much larger state-backed or intelligence-linked apparatus.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 08:45