Zero Rss

"We Must Act": TotalEnergies CEO Joins Calls To Rewire Gulf Energy Flows Around Hormuz

The Strait of Hormuz was disrupted or nearly closed for roughly three and a half to four months, offering Gulf states aligned with the U.S. one clear message: energy flows - or tanker transits - must be rewired through pipeline networks that bypass the maritime chokepoint.

By creating alternative pipeline export routes through the UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Oman, or Turkey, regional producers can reduce the risk that Tehran can once again use Hormuz as a leverage tool to disrupt tanker traffic through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. 

TotalEnergies SE CEO Patrick Pouyanne is the latest to signal the urgent need for Gulf producers to prioritize building pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, according to Reuters.

Speaking at an energy conference in Paris on Tuesday, Pouyanne said, "The reality is that the Strait of Hormuz represents a genuine threat, so we must act. To ensure it doesn't remain a threat, there is only one solution: we must invest in pipelines to bypass the strait, which is an absolute priority."

Pouyanne identified alternative export routes in the UAE and Iraq, as well as through Syria. He continued, "When you are in Iraq and need to reach the sea, you can go down through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or head towards Syria or Turkey." 

He referenced TotalEnergies' discovery of oil in Iraq in 1928, which led to an Iraq-Syria pipeline that took six years to build and allowed the French energy giant to load crude in the Mediterranean and feed refineries in southern France.

"If our predecessors did it 100 years ago, I believe we should be capable of doing it again today," he added.

Pouyanne's comments to bypass Hormuz come days after the UAE's Minister of Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi told Bloomberg in an interview that "zero Hormuz dependency" is essential for survival, adding, "It's going to open and we hope that will happen quickly, but we will not stop the new plan."

The plan includes major investments in pipelines, rail, and road links from UAE ports in the Persian Gulf to Dibba, Fujairah, Khor Fakkan and at least one new harbor on the Gulf of Oman coast.

Earlier this month, Sheikh Khaled Ahmad Al-Sabah, managing director of international marketing at Kuwait Petroleum, said Kuwait is among the countries that have reportedly held talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE about potential cross-border pipelines that could connect Gulf oil production to buyers without relying on tanker transits through Hormuz.

In the first month of the conflict, Saudi Arabia's Hormuz-bypassing East-West pipeline ramped up to its full capacity of 7 million barrels a day, allowing the Kingdom to divert flows from Persian Gulf loading terminals to those at Yanbu on the Red Sea.

There is a growing consensus among Gulf producers and global energy giants that a pipeline network must be expanded at lightning speed to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. That logic is simply because it would drastically reduce the region’s dependence on the chokepoint and simultaneously shatter Tehran’s ability to use tanker flows as a leverage tool in any future spat with Washington.

Related:

• As Gulf States Plan Bypass Pipelines, US Military Is Quietly Helping Ships Cross Hormuz

Earlier today, Eurasia Group senior analyst Gregory Brew wrote on X that Iran's regional leverage is eroding: "This may be Iran's first misstep—and proof that its leverage isn't total. Iran announced the strait was closed, but it didn't *close* the strait. Without the credible threat of force, Iran's sway over the waterway has limits."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 22:10

DHS Proposes To Increase Citizenship Application Fees By 80%

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration on June 23 proposed increasing the cost of becoming an American citizen in a move that would nearly double the price of naturalization.

The proposal would raise the government’s fee for filing an online naturalization application form, the N-400, from $710 to $1,280, an 80-percent increase, according to the proposal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), published in the Federal Register on Tuesday.

For paper filings of the N-400, DHS said that it wants to raise the fee from $760 to $1,330, an increase of 75 percent.

For online filings of the N-336, a form requesting a hearing on naturalization proceedings, the fee would increase from $780 to $1,425, an 83 percent increase.

The paper filing fee for Form N-336 would rise from $830 to $1,475, a 77.7-percent increase.

“Although DHS has historically limited the fees for (citizenship-related applications) to fulfill previous administrations’ priorities of encouraging naturalization, DHS no longer believes naturalization benefit requests should get lower fees at the potential expense of other immigration benefits,” DHS said in its proposed regulation.

DHS officials also said they were moving to remove some fee waivers for poorer applicants. Those waivers would be given only to people who are trying to become citizens by joining the U.S. military, it said.

Should the proposal be accepted, according to the agency, the increases in fees would bring in more than $430 million each year from prospective citizens. It added that around 1 million people seek to become naturalized citizens each year.

The decision drew some pushback from the American Immigration Council. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow with the group, said in a post on X that he believes the DHS proposal is targeting people who have green cards, or permanent residency status, from becoming American citizens.

“The U.S. government for years tried to keep the costs artificially low to encourage more people with green cards to apply for citizenship,” he wrote. “No more, it seems!”

DHS will be accepting public comments until Aug. 24, 2026.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump’s administration has tightened rules around legal immigration and naturalization. In May, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said it would require immigrants seeking green cards to apply from their home country.

“We’re returning to the original intent of the law to ensure aliens navigate our nation’s immigration system properly,” USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler said in a statement last month.

“This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes. When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency.”

Weeks before that, DHS said that immigrants who have made statements that it deems extremist would face closer scrutiny from immigration officials, with a spokesperson saying that such comments “may raise serious concerns for USCIS personnel reviewing an applicant’s file, ​including espousing terrorist ideologies, expressing hatred for American values, advocating for the violent overthrow of the United States ​government, or providing material support to terrorist organizations.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 21:45

From Bartenders To Builders: Data Centers Drive America's Blue-Collar Comeback

A seismic shift is underway in the U.S. labor market after a quarter-century of America's industrial base being hollowed out following China's entry into the WTO, a period marked by the decline of goods-producing jobs while leisure and hospitality employment surged.

The driver of the current job shift is the data center buildout phase, which is expected to require millions of new jobs across construction, manufacturing, electrical trades, power infrastructure, and the broader industrial supply chain. Additionally, reshoring critical supply chains will require even more goods-producing jobs, which are high-paying and pay far more than low-wage jobs such as bartending and waiting.

Nancy Lazar, Piper Sandler's chief global economist and head of the firm's economics research team, published a note on Sunday showing what happened to the U.S. labor market after China joined the WTO in 2001.

The result was a long-term hollowing out of America's industrial base, marked by a sharp decline in higher-paying goods-producing jobs while lower-quality leisure and hospitality jobs surged. Education and health services jobs also continued to move up and to the right.

But there was good news around 2010, when goods-producing jobs began to reverse. Lazar's note suggests that the trend is now set to accelerate as the data center, power grid, and AI infrastructure buildout drives a new wave of demand for industrial labor.

Lazar continued:

Bullish On Goods Producing Jobs vs. Hotel & Restaurant Jobs.

When China joined the WTO in 2001, U.S. goods producing jobs began a decade of decline, while leisure & hospitality, and education & health jobs continued to rise …

… so today, goods producing jobs are less than half those of low-paying service jobs – their share was over 50% in the mid-1980s.

That employment mix shift gave us the bifurcated consumer, as lower paying jobs gained share. Goods producing jobs pay more than overall service producing jobs – and lots more than leisure & hospitality, or education & health care jobs.

Good news: That mix is now shifting the other way, as the long-running (not just tech) capex cycle raises productivity and margins, encouraging adding headcount.

Look at relative earnings growth, by sector, below.

Combine that with falling energy prices and (we believe) slowing core inflation, and we're on the lookout for narrowing bifurcation among consumers. That would indeed be good news. We're watching our Daily consumer confidence survey, non-investor component, closely.

Industrial labor demand is likely to remain a strong trend for several years, with $800 billion in hyperscaler capex being deployed for data center buildouts just this year alone - and don't worry about humanoid robots entering construction sites until the next decade.

However, college graduates, mostly burdened by insurmountable student debt, are watching in disbelief as corporate America rapidly automates white-collar jobs out of existence.

Last week, Goldman analysts led by Pierfrancesco Mei identified the 20 college majors most exposed to AI job disruption.

Most and Least AI-Exposed Jobs  

It's a boon for Main Street and blue-collar workers, rather than college-educated elites. Liberals are furious that SpaceX welders with no college degrees have been minted into instant millionaires after the latest IPO.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 21:20

How Can We Restore Trusted Elections?

Authored by Christian Milord via The Epoch Times,

It's mind-boggling that elections and election results take so long to complete, especially in a developed nation such as the United States.

A person votes in the Virginia redistricting referendum at Lyles-Crouch Traditional Academy, Tuesday, April 21, 2026, in Alexandria, Va. AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

It's inexcusable that our modern society can't establish firm timelines and expedite tabulation when many nations, both developed and developing, announce results on the same day as the election or within a day or two. Many of those countries lack the election technologies that the United States takes for granted.

In the case of very close elections similar to the George W. Bush vs. Al Gore in 2000, there was a need to proceed slowly as the razor thin election boiled down to the state of Florida. There was a recount wherein punch-card ballots were checked for chads and hanging chads to ensure the count was accurate. After five weeks, the election was finally certified by a few hundred votes in favor of Bush by Florida's Secretary of State Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court.

A number of reforms could be rolled out in order to speed up our election system so that results are accurate, timely, and can be trusted by the electorate. Voting is an important earned right that can't be handed out to non-citizens or be taken lightly.

First, voters should have a valid ID to vote, and a valid signature must be written, whether voting is by mail or at a polling location. More than 80 percent of voters favor a valid ID for citizens to vote, since an ID is required for many minor activities that don't rise to the level of importance as a citizen's right to vote. That is why the SAVE Act is so critical at this time as the midterms approach in November. Valid addresses, IDs, and signatures can reduce potential abuse and doubts regarding election integrity.

Second, eliminate the primary system in which a number of candidates vie for elected positions at the local, state, and national levels. It costs untold millions to campaign, mail out ballots, run polling stations, and tabulate votes. Why not have candidates compete for positions every two, four, or six years and hold the elections at specified times in the fall without the need for primaries?

Third, only mail out ballots to voters who request them. Millions of dollars are spent mailing ballots to every registered voter, even though many voters prefer to vote in person at polling locations. One can understand mailing out ballots to American voters who are working overseas. It makes sense to send it to these voters early to allow time for them to complete their ballots and return them to the United States. Unlimited mailing can result in unused ballots and could lead to some ballot harvesting.

Moreover, ballots shouldn't be mailed out so early in the election "season." Those who request ballots should receive them only a few days before an election, not weeks beforehand. Early mail-outs can lead to lost ballots, tossed ballots for those who vote at the polls, and possible ballot harvesting. Likewise, completed ballots postmarked on election day should not be accepted many days after election day. It can generate uncertainty for candidates and voters.

Fourth, make it unlawful for signature collectors or anyone else to pay folks to register to vote or sign on to potential legislation. According to The Epoch Times, this activity has occurred several times in California and elsewhere. Anyone who is concerned with the workings of government shouldn't receive compensation to vote for candidates and issues. No one, regardless of political party, should coerce or entice someone to vote in a partisan direction either. It taints fair and free elections.

Fifth, voter rolls ought to be purged regularly because people pass away, move out of the county, or move into the county as residents and register to vote. Mailing ballots to everyone can be a waste if rolls aren't kept up to date to reflect the current registered voters who still reside in a particular county. If the rolls aren't updated regularly, it can also lead to ballots being stolen or open the floodgates for people to vote twice or for someone else.

Sixth, although mandates wouldn't be effective at shortening the campaign season, they might help to make the campaign trail less drawn out. In most nations, campaign season runs for a few weeks or a month or two. In America, campaigning seems to roll on forever, and elections can feel anticlimactic. By the time one election is concluded, the next election arrives quickly on the horizon. Candidates even campaign while they are in office and constantly keep an eye out for the next election.

Prolonged political campaigning can be a distraction from carrying out the duties of representing the people and solving pressing problems that affect their lives. Media outlets can play a role in discussing critical issues more objectively instead of sensationalizing every minor action by political opponents or supporters.

Constant campaign mode can devolve into self-interest rather than the more important national interest. Americans need fewer promises from politicians and more delivery in the spheres of free markets, the protection of liberty, just laws, and national security.

Common sense informs us that in tight elections, tabulating must be checked carefully at a slower pace than when a candidate or initiative/referendum wins by a larger margin. For the most part, elections can be trusted if they are properly managed and results are released in a timely manner. If the process is lengthy, it can breed cynicism, and many voters might not bother to vote.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:55

Movie "Citizen Vigilante" Exposes Migrant Crime Issue And Triggers Outrage

The current political climate across the west is tumultuous and chaotic, largely due to one volatile issue causing deep divisions:  Mass immigration.  Not just mass immigration, but mass invasion from third-world countries and facilitated by liberal governments. 

Leftists, driven by an obsession with multiculturalism and Marxism, desperately want mass immigration to continue unabated.  Conservatives and centrists want immigration stopped and, ideally, reversed.  Both sides refuse to budge which has created an explosive impasse.  The debate is on the verge of becoming a civil war. 

  

In this debate, only one side is correct.  It is clear to the majority of western citizens that after a decade of migrant programs, there simply is no compatibility between European/American culture and third world cultures.  These cultures reside in regions of the world where authoritarianism and barbarism are ingrained in the public psyche; they have no conception of western ideals of individual freedom, meritocracy, high trust or "tolerance." 

They only view western empathy as a weakness that should be exploited.  Meaning, westerners and third worlders will never be able to coexist.  It's simply not possible without one side dominating the other.

In the midst of this debate the political left has had the most control over popular media and which message gets the most exposure.  Pro-immigration and multicultural movies, TV shows and commercials saturate the market.  If any project criticizing immigration makes it to the light of day, it's kind of a miracle.  Enter the independent film "Citizen Vigilante".

Produced and directed by Uwe Boll, Citizen Vigilante stars Armie Hammer as Sanders, an American businessman and former US Army officer living in Europe.  He becomes incensed by vicious migrant crimes and the corrupt two-tier  legal system that consistently helps migrants escape punishment.  He sets out on a mission to target criminals who avoid justice, along with the political officials who enable the crime. 

Here is the scene in Citizen Vigilante where he confronts a judge who let a group of migrant rapists escape jailtime after raping a 14 year old girl

"Laws are meant to protect the victims" pic.twitter.com/5BlwH1TYxZ

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 22, 2026

The film is reminiscent of a modern-day Death Wish, a movie which was inspired by the extreme firearms restrictions in New York City in 1974.  Restrictions that allowed violent criminals and gangs to run rampant without fear of citizen reprisal.  To this day, NYC remains a safe haven for repeat offenders and lunatics and any private citizen who steps up to prevent a crime is prosecuted.  

Needless to say, the Citizen Vigilante release has caused a stir.  Progressives and Muslim advocates are outraged by the film's brutal violence against migrant characters.  The German government has essentially banned the film from release, refusing to give it a rating or age classification which is needed for theaters to carry the movie.  All the right people seem to be angry.

I’ll be amazed if this movie doesn’t get banned. pic.twitter.com/7lh1rDOijD

— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) June 22, 2026

Leftists have attempted to run interference as the movie rises in popularity, with some claiming that Uwe Boll made the flick as a parody to mock "right wing xenophobia".  This narrative has been dismissed by Uwe Boll himself, and he states that he is quite serious about the film's message.  In response, the media has attacked Boll as a "Nazi".   

The film is inspired by real world events, such as a 2016 Hamburg gang-rape case where perpetrators received suspended sentences because of their migrant status. It ends with a dedication to "rape victims in Europe who were betrayed by our legal system."

The mainstream critics hate Citizen Vigilante, which is a badge of honor these days.  But is it really so shocking that the commentary within the popular zeitgeist is shifting to address a problem which concerns the majority of the western population?  Did the political left really believe that they could engineer a foreign invasion without the public speaking out?  Did they really think they could control the narrative forever?

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:30

The Myth Of Price Controls

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The Cuban dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s recent admission that Cuba’s generalized price caps failed to contain inflation, generated shortages, encouraged illegal markets, and reduced tax revenues is another confirmation of a much older economic lesson: price controls do not solve inflationary pressures, and they intensify the distortions they are meant to prevent.

The Cuban case is especially revealing because the criticism comes not from ideological opponents but from the regime that imposed the controls and later conceded their failure.

Cuban dictator admits that price controls never work.

Mamdani, Elizabeth Warren, Sanders and Ocasio Cortez should listen pic.twitter.com/OtEChOioL3

— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) June 21, 2026

According to Díaz-Canel’s own remarks, price controls in Cuba produced the opposite of their intended effect: instead of stabilizing prices, they encouraged product scarcity, illegal-market activity, higher effective prices, and falling tax revenues. The government’s decision to eliminate price controls therefore amounts to an empirical acknowledgment that administrative decrees could not keep pace with economic reality.

This episode matters beyond Cuba because it captures the core mechanism of price control failure. When official prices are fixed below levels that would clear the market, legal suppliers reduce availability, quality deteriorate, and transactions migrate to informal channels where the real market price reappears, often with a premium for risk and scarcity. Thus, inflation is not abolished by decree but only transferred from the official statistics into queues, shortages, and the underground market.

The Austrian School of Economics has long argued that prices are not arbitrary numbers but indispensable signals coordinating dispersed knowledge across an economy. Ludwig von Mises claimed that intervening against market prices does not eliminate the underlying forces of supply and demand but rather creates secondary distortions that generate demands for additional intervention. Friedrich Von Hayek reminded us that market prices transmit information that no planner can centrally aggregate in real time, making administrative price fixing structurally destructive.

From this standpoint, price controls always fail because they attack symptoms of disequilibrium rather than the causes. Inflation is caused by monetary expansion, fiscal excess, and government intervention. Capping prices cannot restore equilibrium; it only disguises the visible expression of official price measures for a short time. Every nation that implemented price controls experienced repressed inflation, scarcity, and the transfer of exchange into underground markets.

Modern empirical research is almost unanimous. A broad review of studies on price controls and limits finds near-universal evidence of shortages and persistent inflation, along with lower quality, weaker innovation, and long-run welfare losses. Historical evidence from the United States also shows that wartime price controls and the Nixon-era stabilization program only brought rationing, shortages, and renewed price surges.

The empirical literature is particularly clear on resource misallocation. Lucas Davis and Lutz Kilian estimate that residential natural gas price controls in the United States from 1954 to 1989 created shortages of almost 20 percent and widespread supply disruptions. Edward Glaeser and Erzo Luttmer find that rent control in New York generated scarcity and misallocated housing by encouraging occupancy patterns disconnected from household size, imposing substantial annual welfare losses.

Other studies show that the negative effect of controls quickly adds other costs. H. E. Frech III and William C. Lee estimate that the welfare cost of gasoline queuing during the U.S. oil crises exceeded $5 billion in California alone, illustrating how suppressed prices frequently reappear as waiting costs and widespread economic losses. Research also finds that quality tends to deteriorate under ceilings because producers attempt to remain profitable by lowering inputs when they are prevented from charging market prices.

One of the worst outcomes of price controls is the expansion of the black economy. When the legal price becomes uneconomic for suppliers, transactions disappear or go off the books, where sellers can charge prices closer to actual scarcity conditions. Even the European Commission, the World Bank, and the FMI recognize this pattern, admitting that controls drive activity toward illegal markets, reduce tax collection, and create significant distortions in the economy. Gas price controls in Spain resulted in an increase in prices for 75% of consumers when the government imposed a cap on the 25% that used the state-regulated tariff. Gasoline price controls in China led to enormous losses in refineries and a widespread ban on refined product exports that resulted in multi-billion yuan losses in tax revenue.

This fiscal effect is not irrelevant. When activity shifts into informal channels, governments lose taxable transactions even as they face stronger political pressure to subsidize shortages, police markets, and intensify enforcement. The result is a destructive cycle in which intervention reduces formal output, shrinks the tax base, and then becomes the rationale for additional intervention.

Price-control defenders believe that inflation is caused primarily by the pricing decisions of firms rather than monetary and macroeconomic imbalances, and they think that governments can set prices. However, every single instance of price controls leads to scarcity and worse results, but interventionists do not care because they blame the problems caused by intervention on the lack of enough repression. The evidence is clear. Price controls can alter the formal expression of inflation, but they do not remove price pressures or the underlying causes; instead, they convert open price increases into scarcity, rationing, lower quality, and underground-market premium.

Inflation cannot be solved by declaring prices illegal. Furthermore, price controls perpetuate high inflation by destroying the elements that can help prices normalize, competition and technology, as well as innovation. Inflation is solved through sound money, prudent fiscal policy, and a market process that allows prices to coordinate production and consumption.

Governments never reduce prices; they increase them by spending and printing. All a government can do is facilitate inflation reduction by controlling spending and opening the economy to competition. Cuba’s reversal is therefore more than just a change in domestic policy; it serves as a reminder that regimes committed to intervention will eventually clash with economic realities that price controls cannot disguise.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 20:05

Trump Admin Kicks Off American Nuclear Renaissance With $17.5 Billion Loan Program For Reactor Projects

With hyperscalers set to spend roughly $800 billion on data-center capex this year alone, alongside reshoring and broader grid electrification, baseload power demand is poised to surge.

We have made the case that intermittent solar and wind are no match for the scale and reliability requirements of the modern economy, and that nuclear power is emerging as the clean, always-on power source needed to power the AI era.

The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday morning that the Trump administration plans to supercharge the deployment of nuclear power with a $17.5 billion low-interest loan program to help utilities finance orders for Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 reactors.

The Energy Department, under Secretary Chris Wright, plans to make five loans available for two-reactor projects, with the goal of expediting equipment orders and cutting up to three years from construction timelines.

More from the report:

Seven utilities have already signed formal letters of intent for the five available project loans, according to the Energy Department, which didn't name the utilities.

Wright said the plan to accelerate the deployment timeline of ten reactors will "unleash the next American nuclear renaissance."

Those reactors "will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump's bold and ambitious energy addition agenda," Wright said.

The AP1000 reactors, which produce about 1,100 megawatts of power, are slated to come online in 2035 and will generate enough electricity to power a midsize city or a large data center.

Westinghouse Electric CEO Dan Sumner stated, "It really kick-starts fleet-scale nuclear development in the United States."

The problem is that the US track record of bringing new nuclear power reactors online has been awful. The only completed domestic AP1000s are Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which entered commercial service in July 2023 and April 2024, and took ten years to build.

The latest nuclear reactor construction note from Goldman shows China is in the lead with 40 reactors under construction, followed by India with eight and Russia with six.

Read the latest on the nuclear reactor construction tracker (here).

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:40

The Next Commodity Supercycle Has Already Started

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

The world rotates between two sectors: technology and energy.

You have to turn the lights on or nothing happens. You need both the lights and the energy to power them. No lights, only energy? Nothing. Lights with no energy? Nothing.

Essentially you have to innovate or you never progress. Markets tend to rotate between those two broad sectors accordingly.

Go back to the height of the energy boom in 2013 and 2014. You couldn’t give Microsoft away. Energy, on the other hand, could do no wrong. That was the time to own tech.

Then tech took a bottle of Viagra and proceeded to shoot the lights out from 2014 through roughly 2022 while energy was decimated and left for dead. The way it works is that the last clutch of investors in any given sector go about losing their shirts and as a result are extremely reluctant to re-enter it anytime soon.

Recall that in 2001, the NASDAQ pulled back by a whopping 75%. That unleashed a commodity supercycle that ran all the way to 2014. When the NASDAQ recovered to its prior high, oil rolled over almost to the day… and the cycle reset. History suggests oil goes up seven times on average during such a cycle. Historically, the NASDAQ gets taken down 50 to 75%.

We are at the point where we think both have pretty decent probabilities. Hence our long positions on energy and short positions on NASDAQ.

What Has Changed: China Weaponises the Periodic Table

This cycle is bigger — far bigger and more structurally meaningful — than anything I’ve ever seen or researched by looking back at prior decades. The key driver is geopolitical and elemental.

China has weaponised the periodic table. The world’s two largest powers have divided the material world between them.

China dominates the periodic table, namely metals, rare earths, and critical minerals. China is, in essence, an electron state.

The United States dominates the organic chemistry version: hydrocarbons, food, fuels. The US is a molecular state.

When China restricted exports of critical minerals and rare earth magnets in October of last year, it immediately revealed how fragile Western manufacturing supply chains are. A magnet might represent 0.00001% of GDP, but remove it and you shut down an entire industry.

The same logic applies to oil. People say oil is a small share of the economy, but you pull it out and everything stops. Efficiency gains over decades have actually made oil more critical, not less. We’ve stripped out all the low-priority uses, leaving only the essential ones. You cannot substitute away from what remains. No energy, no civilisation. Simple.

This power struggle between the United States and China is the central frame for understanding commodity markets over the coming decade.

The End of the Bretton Woods Hegemon

The broader geopolitical structure underpinning commodity markets is fracturing.

The Bretton Woods world was built in 1944 when the United States had the only functioning manufacturing supply chain on earth.

The grand bargain was simple: America would take its enormous navy — inherited from the British, who inherited it from the Spanish and Portuguese before them (a 400-year accumulation of ports, bases, and sea lanes) — and protect global shipping in exchange for the world trading in US dollars.

The most important commodity flowing through those lanes was, and still is, oil.

Three things have now broken that model:

1. The US shale revolution made America energy independent, removing its incentive to protect global supply lanes.

2. Higher interest rates then exposed the fiscal impossibility of maintaining that role — Medicare and Social Security are the largest line items in the US budget, interest costs are now second, and defence is third. The US simply cannot continue to be the world’s policeman at this cost structure. Socialism combined with fiscal irresponsibility, compounding.

3. And China is actively resupplying and supporting its allies — Russia and Iran — making any US-led enforcement action structurally harder.

When the US protects a ship carrying Chilean copper from Santiago to Shanghai, it is paying the security bill for its primary strategic competitor. That arrangement is now ending. The problem is there is no replacement hegemon large enough to step into that role.

The world may be reverting to something resembling the Dutch East India Company era — state-sponsored sovereign entities with their own security arrangements, trading in gold, silver, and hard assets, using mercenary forces to protect supply chains.

Large corporations like Apple and Exxon are beginning to look more like sovereign entities than conventional companies.

*  *  *

The rotation from technology to energy and commodities is only one part of a much larger shift now underway. Debt, money printing, geopolitical conflict, and deep cultural changes are all colliding at the same time. That means the years ahead could bring extraordinary volatility—and extraordinary opportunity—for investors who understand what is really happening. That is why we recently prepared a free special report called Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. In it, contrarian money manager Chris MacIntosh explains the major economic, political, and cultural trends unfolding right now, what risks they could create for your money and personal freedom, and what you could do to stay one step ahead. You can get the full report here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:15

Automakers Race Into Humanoid Robots As Timeline For Blue-Collar Job Disruption Emerges

Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee is out with a fascinating note explaining why automakers are making a mad dash into the world of humanoid robotics, arguing that their manufacturing scale, supply-chain depth, and years of investment in autonomous driving give them a structural lead in the emerging physical-AI market.

Lee writes that automakers are also seeking new revenue streams beyond the core vehicle business, with humanoids poised to move from factory floors into the physical world across retail, security, public service, and eventually homes.

From Tesla and Hyundai to XPeng, Xiaomi, BYD, Geely, and Chery, automakers are quickly moving beyond EVs and into humanoids through in-house development, acquisitions, minority stakes, and strategic partnerships. Lee said this trend became visible in China, where multiple OEM-linked robots were showcased at the 2026 Beijing Auto Show.

"OEMs are entering humanoid robotics to boost productivity and unlock new revenue streams," Lee wrote in the note.

She noted, "Automakers have several advantages across hardware, software, and scale. There is significant overlap between vehicle and humanoid components—motors, reducers, sensors —as well as manufacturing."

Here are the automakers in the humanoid robot lead:  

1. Tesla is developing its humanoid robot Optimus, progressing from Gen 1 (2022) to Gen 2 and Gen 2.5 prototypes by 2025, reflecting rapid iteration in hardware and software. Its strategy starts with manufacturing applications, with a long- term ambition to expand into consumer and household scenarios. Tesla targets limited commercialization in 2026 and volume shipments in 2027. A key constraint is that dexterous hand capability remains a major bottleneck, limiting real-world deployment readiness despite strong system-level progress.

2. Hyundai, the parent company of Boston Dynamics, is pursuing an aggressive humanoid roadmap, transitioning Atlas from R&D to industrial deployment. Production-ready Atlas robots are being introduced into real factory environments, with initial applications in parts sequencing and heavy-duty manufacturing tasks. The group is targeting annual production capacity of up to 30,000 units by 2028, alongside internal rollout of over 25,000 robots across Hyundai facilities. This combination of full-stack control, large-scale manufacturing plans, and clear volume targets positions Hyundai as the leading OEM in humanoid robot industrialization.

3. XPeng is one of the more ambitious OEMs in humanoid robotics, with its IRON robot evolving through multiple generations during 2024-2025. A key milestone was its 2025 AI Day debut, where IRON's natural, catwalk-like walk went viral—so lifelike that audience questioned whether a human was inside. This showcased a major breakthrough in human-like locomotion and established XPeng as a frontrunner in embodied intelligence. The company targets mass production by end-2026 and global deliveries in 2027, focusing on both industrial and retail/service use cases such as showroom assistants and patrol robots, aiming for near-term commercialization.

4. Chery is currently one of the more advanced OEMs in China on commercialization, with its humanoid robot "Moyin" achieving global delivery of 220 units in 2025 and further deployments across public service scenarios such as policing and medical guidance. Chery's humanoid robot are available for purchase for RMB 285.8k (US$41k) through e-commerce channels like JD.com (LINK). Chery stands out for delivering the first meaningful batch of products among OEMs, a diversified product ecosystem (including robot dogs and service robots), and a clear three-stage roadmap from companion robots to public service and, eventually, household applications.

5. GAC has developed the GoMate humanoid series (now at the 4th-generation GoMate Mini), targeting applications in elderly care, security, and industrial environments, with pilot production planned for 2026 and mass production in 2027. Incrementally, GAC differentiates itself through innovations such as a wheel-legged hybrid mobility structure and by spinning off a dedicated robotics subsidiary to accelerate commercialization in a more market-oriented structure.

Early industrial deployment of these bots:

1. BMW has rapidly progressed humanoid robotics from pilot testing to real production environments, building on early collaborations with Figure's robots in 2025. At its Spartanburg plant, humanoids supported the production of over 30k vehicles through tasks such as sheet-metal handling, demonstrating reliability in high-throughput settings. The company is now expanding pilots to Europe, with deployments in Leipzig targeting battery assembly, intralogistics, and component production from summer 2026. BMW's strategy emphasizes iterative scaling through live manufacturing validation, positioning humanoids as flexible co-workers rather than committing to immediate mass production.

2. Toyota is among the first OEMs to convert humanoid pilots into commercial deployment through a Robots-as-a-Service (RaaS) model with Agility Robotics. Following a successful pilot, Toyota signed a 2026 agreement to deploy Digit humanoids in production, focusing on logistics tasks such as parts handling and line feeding. Initial deployments remain small

Emerging players:

1. Xiaomi has been developing humanoid robots since 2020, launching CyberOne in 2022 and more recently open-sourcing its Xiaomi-Robotics-0 embodied AI model in 2026. Its current focus is on manufacturing scenarios such as inspection and assembly, though no clear mass production timeline has been announced. Xiaomi has demonstrated strong technical progress, including achieving over 90% success rates in real factory tasks and advancing high-precision dexterous hand capabilities, supported by its strength in AI foundation models and embodied intelligence.

2. BYD is advancing an internally developed humanoid robot project (codename "Yao Shun Yu"), initiated in 2022 and supported by partnerships such as its embodied intelligence lab with HKUST. BYD stands out for its deep vertical integration across batteries, motors, semiconductors, and precision manufacturing, as well as its potential to leverage its global dealership network for future commercialization.

3. Li Auto is taking a differentiated approach by framing robotics under a broader "space robot" concept, incorporating wheeled robots for manufacturing and future humanoids potentially for household use. While mass production plans are not disclosed, the company has established dedicated robotics business units. Li Auto is notable for its emphasis on AI, including heavy investment in large models such as Mind GPT, and its vision of integrating robots into a wider in-car, wearable, and intelligent ecosystem.

Complete overview of the auto industry by company developing humanoids:

More color from Lee about why automakers are expanding into humanoids:

Auto OEMs are expanding into humanoid robotics for two main reasons: to raise internal productivity and to open up new revenue pools beyond the core vehicle business. They also believe they possess structural advantages in manufacturing, supply chains, and embodied AI that position them well in this emerging category.

On raising internal productivity: Humanoid robots offer a logical next step in factory and warehouse automation, especially as manufacturers face rising labour costs, an aging workforce, and persistent shortages in repetitive, physically demanding, or harsh-environment roles. While stamping, welding, and painting are already highly automated, final assembly and intralogistics remain comparatively labour-intensive. This leaves a meaningful automation gap in tasks such as material handling, precision assembly, inspection, and testing. Humanoid robots could help narrow that gap by operating in tighter spaces and more complex shop-floor environments than traditional fixed automation. Material handling is a particularly relevant use case, given its high injury incidence and recurring labour shortages during peak production periods. If execution improves and costs fall, humanoids could support both labour substitution and structurally lower manufacturing costs over time.

Opening up new external revenue streams: Some OEMs, including Tesla and XPeng, have framed the long-term total addressable market for humanoid robots as comparable to, or potentially larger than, the automotive market. In addition to manufacturing and warehouse settings, humanoids could eventually address a broad range of consumer and service applications, including patrol and security, retail guide and store operations, and, over the longer term, household assistance. For OEMs, the appeal is not only participation in a potentially large new market, but also the opportunity to extend their capabilities in high-volume manufacturing, supply chain know how, software, sensing, and control systems into a new product category.

Here are the jobs humanoids could displace in the next 1-3 years, 3-5 years, and 5 years and beyond.

We suspect the adoption curve for humanoids will be much steeper than the rollout of automobiles over a century ago.

Humanoid robot adoption should accelerate over the next several years as automakers position themselves to become key suppliers of these bots that could easily disrupt blue-collar work across factories, warehouses, logistics networks, and eventually homes.

The labor disruption theme is already unfolding across white-collar jobs, where AI-related layoffs have topped 50,000 so far this year. Goldman recently outlined the college degrees youngsters should avoid as AI begins reshaping entry-level career paths.

Professional subscribers can read more on humanoids and AI at our Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:50

California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Three California residents are suing a fuel pricing company and several gas station operators, alleging that they use artificial intelligence-based pricing systems to raise gasoline prices in an uncompetitive manner.

Gas prices above $6 a gallon are displayed at a Shell station in Los Angeles on on May 4, 2026. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

"Californians are being forced to pay surcharges that cannot be explained by crude oil costs, refining costs, environmental regulation, or taxes," said the June 22 class action lawsuit, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

"Part of the cause of California's astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state's largest fuel retailers."

The company's Kalibrate Fuel Pricing software, an algorithmic, AI-based pricing system, "connects directly to gas stations' pumps and signs. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing relies on the data of competing gas stations to coordinate high prices and wring more money from the pockets of consumers throughout the state," the lawsuit states.

This is contradictory to historical trends where gas stations have competed to secure customers by "aggressively undercutting" retail prices, the lawsuit said.

The "artificial surcharge" from the algorithmic pricing scheme inflicts a "severe, daily financial toll" on millions of Californians, the lawsuit said. For people whose livelihoods are tied to road transport, such as truck drivers, the higher gas prices eat into their incomes.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, a gallon of regular gasoline costs $5.56 on average in California as of June 23, the highest in the country.

A month ago, prices were at $6.11 per gallon amid US-Iran war tensions. A year ago, prices were still close to $5 at $4.66 per gallon.

California's current gasoline price of $5.56 per gallon is more than $1.6 higher than the $3.92 national average.

In their lawsuit, the defendants said that Kalibrate Fuel Pricing even has a feature that enables almost all gas stations in a market to raise gasoline prices simultaneously.

In addition to Kalibrate, the complaint lists 14 gas station operators and 10 unidentified gasoline fuel retail companies as defendants. Some of the major gas station operators include 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP.

The plaintiffs - Joel Casciani from Chula Vista, Paola Hartman from Homeland, and Crystal Turnbough from Marysville - allege that the gas station defendants' actions amount to a "modern, digital iteration of traditional price-fixing and combination that California law expressly forbids."

They asked the court to stop "Defendants' unlawful combination and collusion, restore competition to California's retail fuel markets, and make California drivers whole by compensating them for the substantial overcharges Defendants have extracted from them through their illegal scheme."

The Epoch Times reached out to Kalibrate, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

According to Kalibrate, its pricing software is used in more than 20 nations across five continents. The company says on its website that the Kalibrate Fuel Pricing platform delivers "competitive, profitable prices at speed," powered with AI-driven intelligence.

The software delivers 8.3 million fuel prices every month. More than 25,000 fuel sites are actively priced with Kalibrate Fuel Pricing, with the average weekly profit per site rising by $331 from AI optimization, the company said.

California's Gasoline Crisis

Meanwhile, California is experiencing an energy crisis resulting from decades of environmental regulations that stifled domestic oil production, defense and engineering expert Mike Fredenburg said in a Feb. 23 commentary published by The Epoch Times.

"Refining capacity has plummeted to about 1.3 million barrels per day today from 2.5 million barrels per day in 1982 - a drop of 48 percent," Fredenburg said.

"During this same period, oil pumped from California wells dropped to a little more than 300,000 from more than 1 million barrels per day, a 70 percent decrease."

Fredenburg attributed the huge premium paid by Californians for gasoline partly to the "general hostility" of the state to the oil and gas sector.

This has created a situation in which many oil and gas companies are moving away from the state. As such, California is left to buy crude oil from foreign nations and even pay other countries to produce the state's special gas and diesel formulation, Fredenburg said.

In May, a group of lawmakers introduced the Transportation Fuel Market Transparency Act to crack down on market manipulation and protect people from price spikes at gas pumps, according to a May 5 statement from the office of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

The bill seeks to create a Transportation Fuel Monitoring and Enforcement Unit within the Federal Trade Commission to "proactively monitor fuel markets for fraud, manipulation, and anti-competitive behavior that can artificially inflate prices," the statement said.

The measure "would also increase transparency across fuel markets and significantly raise penalties for bad actors," it said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:25

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire

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

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

1. Increasing control of scarce spectrum assets,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those rivals include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EPA, via Shutterstock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Randi Whinegarten

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bald-faced lie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * *

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

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

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

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

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

via Bloomberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to a backgrounder in the NY Times:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Decline Of Mainstream Media: From COVID To Capital Markets

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The released also showed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naveen Athrappully and Reuters contributed to this report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dart's four takeaways:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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