ZeroHedge News

Appeals Court Allows Ohio To Restrict Children's Use Of Social Media

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 15:10:00 +0000

Appeals Court Allows Ohio To Restrict Children's Use Of Social Media

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court on Thursday allowed Ohio to enforce a law requiring social media companies to obtain parental consent before permitting children under 16 to access their platforms.

Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Facebook, Twitch, and Reddit applications are displayed on a mobile phone on Dec. 9, 2025. Hollie Adams/Reuters

The law, known as the Social Media Parental Notification Act, was passed by the state's legislature in 2023 and took effect in January 2024. NetChoice - a trade group representing TikTok, Meta, and other major tech companies - later filed a lawsuit, alleging that the law was unconstitutional.

In April, U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley ruled in NetChoice's favor and permanently blocked Ohio from enforcing the law. The state subsequently appealed the ruling.

In a 2-1 decision on June 18, a panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, finding that Ohio's law does not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Eric Clay said the state law imposes only "a marginal burden" by requiring parental consent for children to use social media platforms.

"That requirement constitutes a marginal burden that precisely targets the multi-faceted problem that Ohio has identified: Children's unsupervised assent to terms and conditions for use of platforms that take advantage of and harm them," Clay said.

"Parental consent will not always be narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in protecting minors' well-being. It works here because the nature of the harm itself is that children's unsupervised use of social media puts them at risk of the adverse effects of prolonged and unregulated exposure."

Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson praised the appeals court's decision, calling it "a win for Ohio families."

Wilson said in a statement that the ruling would allow parents to supervise their children's use of social media.

"The court agreed that parents - not social media companies - should get a say in what kids see online. We have an obligation to keep our children safe, and today, the most dangerous place for our kids is the internet," he stated. "This decision gives parents the tools to be involved and provide oversight."

NetChoice said the appeals court's decision will threaten the online privacy and constitutional rights of Ohioan residents. The group suggested that it intends to continue the legal challenge.

"By requiring parents to override the government's determination, Ohio has violated bedrock First Amendment principles," Paul Taske, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. "We are currently reviewing our options on how best to move forward."

NetChoice last year won court rulings blocking a similar social media parental consent law in Arkansas and a children's digital privacy law in California.

Australia became the first country last December to impose a ban on social media for children under 16 amid concerns about the online safety risks to the nation's youth.

Several countries have since followed suit or are weighing similar social media restrictions over concerns about the platforms' impact on children's mental health. Among those countries are the UK, Austria, Denmark, France, Indonesia, and Malaysia.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 11:10

Russia Vows "Massive Group Strikes" On Ukraine After Drone Swarm Attack On Refinery

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 14:45:00 +0000

Russia Vows "Massive Group Strikes" On Ukraine After Drone Swarm Attack On Refinery

Ukraine's massive drone swarm attack on the Russian capital, targeting critical energy infrastructure including a major refinery and storage tank farms, has sparked fuel-shortage fears in Moscow while prompting Russia to warn Kyiv of "massive group strikes" in retaliation.

On Thursday, 200 Ukrainian suicide drones swarmed Gazprom's Moscow Refinery in what military observers are calling Kyiv's most brazen offensive of the four-year war to date.

Footage from the southeastern outskirts of the city showed the drone swarm attack and the resulting columns of black smoke billowing from the heavily damaged refinery and storage tank farms.

Additional footage of Russia’s Moscow oil refinery ablaze this morning after a successful Ukrainian drone attack. pic.twitter.com/34c27d565q
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 18, 2026

HOLY SMOKES! Moscow right now 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/Oxz4pLHIwQ
— Kate from Kharkiv (@BohuslavskaKate) June 18, 2026

"It is no coincidence that the president announced some time ago, after yet another Kyiv terrorist attack, that we will now conduct massive group strikes on a regular basis against targets whose condition directly affects the combat readiness of the Ukrainian Armed Forces," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters yesterday, according to Interfax.

Ukraine's drone attack appears to have targeted Russia's refining capacity, as concerns grow that fuel shortages could soon materialize in the capital area.

Sergey Vakulenko, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center in Berlin and a former Russian oil executive, told Bloomberg that a gas shortage in Moscow is now unavoidable.

"The authorities will do everything they can to bring fuel in from other regions," Vakulenko said. "However, rail capacity is not unlimited, and nearby refineries have also been damaged."

Kyiv has been pounding away at Russia's energy infrastructure with drones. The latest data from EA Analytics indicates that Russian crude-processing rates are set to drop to two-decade lows in June.

Here's TD Securities Roman Schweizer's first take on the attack:

The G7 confab happened without any major blowups. The formal declaration is here. Notably, the group promised support for UKR and tougher sanction on RUS. "We commit to increase the pressure on the Russian war economy. In this context, we will strengthen our sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors. We consider this the right moment to proceed with additional measures, as President Trump has delivered a deal that we support in reopening the Strait of Hormuz." UKR continues to make incredibly effective long-range strikes into Moscow, spectacularly hitting a storage tank at an oil refinery. There is stunning footage of black smoke billowing over Moscow (generating both real and psychological effects). The war isn't going well for Putin either tactically or strategically. UKR has seized the momentum - the big question is what comes next: a diplomatic off-ramp or military escalation? We struggle to see how RUS could do something to change the battlefield dynamics and worry that a desperate Putin might try something desperate.

What Russia's "massive group strikes" response will look like remains to be seen, but the threat of gray-zone sabotage across the West is rising. That could include a campaign of cyberattacks, arson, logistics disruption, rail and port interference, telecom or undersea-cable incidents, and attacks against defense supply-chain nodes supporting Ukraine.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 10:45

The Crypto Risk No One Is Discussing

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 14:20:00 +0000

The Crypto Risk No One Is Discussing

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

With bitcoin hovering near $65,000, down about 50% over the last year, the mood across crypto has become increasingly subdued lately.

For most of the 2020s, cryptocurrency transformed from a niche financial experiment into a major political issue. What began as a technology debate evolved into a cultural and ideological battleground, with Republicans increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of digital assets and free markets while Democrats often emphasized consumer protection, financial oversight, and regulatory scrutiny.

Aside from worrying about adoption, quantum computing and things like what would happen if Satoshi’s bitcoin ever moved, I see another major risk for bitcoin holders and crypto advocates that isn’t being talked about nearly as much as I think it should It’s not technological, macroeconomic or regulatory—at least not in the way most people think.

The real risk is political. And it starts with a simple question: What happens if Democrats come roaring back in 2026 and then win the White House in 2028?

For most of the decade, cryptocurrency has steadily moved from being a financial technology story to becoming a political identity. Republicans increasingly embraced crypto as a symbol of innovation, economic freedom, and resistance to government control. Democrats, meanwhile, have always positioned themselves as the party of oversight, consumer protection, and financial regulation. Elizabeth Warren is already foaming at the mouth over the SpaceX IPO.

Crypto bears nowadays argue that with the entire backing of the U.S. political apparatus, bitcoin has had trouble holding a price in the six figures. This must mean adoption has peaked. As Peter Schiff never misses an opportunity to remind bitcoin investors, if an asset can't stay above major price milestones after getting ETFs, Wall Street, Silicon Valley, half of X, and a crypto-friendly federal government cheering it on, maybe the problem isn't a lack of catalysts. Maybe the catalysts have already been spent.

In that case, most investors wouldn’t just be betting on bitcoin anymore. They’d be betting on a political environment that appears unusually favorable to crypto. The White House is openly supportive. Regulators have eased their tone. Congress is debating legislation that could provide long-awaited clarity for digital assets. Not surprisingly, capital flowed back into the sector in the first year of the Trump administration.

The entire crypto ecosystem has become increasingly intertwined with that political backdrop…and now our financial system.

Michael Saylor continues to use Strategy as a giant bitcoin acquisition vehicle despite growing questions about how some of the company’s securities are trading relative to their underlying economics.

Strategy is now trading at a discount to its estimated net asset value, while Saylor’s STRC preferred product recently closed around 91 cents on the dollar—nearly 10% below par. I wrote a warning about this product back in April while Michael Saylor was taking daily victory laps on X about how it kept closing at par. Those days are over.

As this is all occurring in the background, the broader message remains that crypto still has powerful political allies. And at a time where things already are looking shaky in crypto, that confidence may be setting up the industry’s next major vulnerability. Because if Democrats regain power, they are unlikely to view crypto through the same favorable lens.

So by 2028, cryptocurrency may no longer be viewed simply as an emerging technology sector or a new asset class. It could instead become one of the defining symbols of the Trump era itself. Trump family members, business entities, and individuals closely connected to the administration have reportedly generated more than $2 billion in crypto-related wealth “while more than a million investors lost the same amount on the other side of those trades”.

Chances are, Elizabeth Warren and her merry band of socialists aren’t going to be overjoyed about that. And political battles are often fought over narratives, symbols, and perceived abuses of power.

By the end of a second Trump term, many Democrats may see crypto not as a neutral technology but as a financial ecosystem deeply intertwined with the political movement they are trying to defeat.

That creates a potentially dangerous setup for investors. Democrats would not need to argue that bitcoin itself is inherently harmful or that blockchain technology lacks value. Instead, they could frame the industry as a vehicle for conflicts of interest, political favoritism, speculative excess, and extraordinary wealth creation among a relatively small group of well-connected insiders. That is a much easier argument to make, particularly to voters who do not own digital assets and are unlikely to lose sleep over the fortunes of stablecoin issuers, token promoters, crypto treasury companies, or billionaires who have amassed enormous wealth through the sector.

Every political era eventually produces a reaction, and the stronger the pendulum swings in one direction, the harder it often swings back. If Democrats conclude that the Trump years were characterized by excessive deregulation, blurred lines between public office and private business interests, and a speculative boom that disproportionately benefited insiders, financial markets could become a major target for reform. Crypto would almost certainly find itself near the top of that list.

The range of potential initiatives is broad. Lawmakers could pursue tougher disclosure requirements for elected officials and their families, expand insider trading enforcement, increase reporting obligations for large investors and corporate insiders, and devote greater resources to investigating market manipulation and politically connected investment vehicles. While those proposals might be presented as ethics reforms or good-governance measures, their practical impact could extend well beyond Washington and reshape how capital flows throughout financial markets.

Cryptocurrency would be exposed. A future Democratic administration could seek expanded SEC authority over digital assets, tougher anti-money-laundering standards, more aggressive know-your-customer requirements, stricter oversight of stablecoins, enhanced reporting obligations for exchanges and wallet providers, tighter rules governing token issuance, and new restrictions on decentralized finance platforms. Basically, the total opposite of what this administration is doing: pardoning various white collar criminals and exploiting the public markets for personal gain.

Congress could also revisit broader financial reforms that seem politically unrealistic today but could quickly gain momentum under a different political environment, including transaction taxes, stricter leverage limits, expanded beneficial ownership disclosures, enhanced monitoring of digital asset transactions, and greater scrutiny of corporate treasury strategies built around cryptocurrency holdings.

None of these measures would require banning bitcoin, and that is the point many investors miss. Governments do not need to prohibit an activity outright to change behavior. They simply need to increase compliance costs, reporting requirements, legal uncertainty, and regulatory complexity enough to make investors, institutions, and corporations think twice before committing capital. Markets are extraordinarily sensitive to incentives, and they are also forward-looking. By the time new rules are formally enacted, much of the repricing may have already occurred.

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

If investors begin to believe that a decent Democratic performance in 2026 could happen, and a Democratic sweep is possible in 2028, they could think about how it may usher in a significantly tougher regulatory environment. And then, crypto prices may not wait for Election Day to react. Capital could begin adjusting months in advance. Investors would price in future restrictions, valuations would come under pressure, policymakers could point to declining prices as evidence that speculative excess is being wrung out of the system, and the resulting weakness could generate additional political support for further reforms. In that scenario, the expectation of regulation becomes nearly as powerful as regulation itself.

Supporters of such policies would insist that none of this constitutes a crackdown. They would argue that it represents a long-overdue return to accountability after years of meme speculation, regulatory arbitrage, and politically connected wealth creation. Critics would see something very different, calling it political retaliation disguised as financial reform. Both sides would undoubtedly believe they are acting in the public interest. Markets, however, tend to care less about motives than outcomes, and the outcome for crypto could be painful.

At the moment, most investors are focused elsewhere. They are watching bitcoin hover around $65,000. They are tracking ETF flows, following Michael Saylor’s latest purchases, and celebrating every headline that appears to confirm crypto’s growing acceptance within the American financial system. What they may not be watching closely enough is the possibility that the industry’s political victories are laying the groundwork for its future political vulnerability.

If Democrats retake Congress in 2026 and capture the White House in 2028, the debate surrounding cryptocurrency could change dramatically. The conversation may no longer revolve around adoption, innovation, or even bitcoin itself. Instead, it could become a broader referendum on the political and financial ecosystem that grew around crypto during the Trump years.

And if that happens, the next major crypto bear market lower from here may not begin with a recession, a bankruptcy, or a technological failure. It may begin with an election.

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 Fri, 06/19/2026 - 10:20

"No Greater Threat To America's Way Of Life": Senate Unanimously Passes Resolution To Condemn CCP Leader Xi Jinping

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 13:30:00 +0000

"No Greater Threat To America's Way Of Life": Senate Unanimously Passes Resolution To Condemn CCP Leader Xi Jinping

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times,

U.S. senators have voiced support for ordinary Chinese people and denounced communist regime leader Xi Jinping for lying to Americans and committing human rights abuses.

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved on June 16 by voice vote a resolution (Senate Resolution 444) condemning Xi for “deceit, undermining prospects for peace and security, and orchestrating crimes against humanity.”

The resolution also encourages the U.S. government and its agencies to use all available tools—including the authorities under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which allow sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations or corruption—to hold Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials accountable.

The vote came just a day after Xi’s 73rd birthday.

“There is no greater threat to America’s way of life, peace, and prosperity in the world than Xi Jinping and the CCP,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who introduced the resolution earlier this month, told the Senate before the vote.

“Xi Jinping hates us. Communist China wants to destroy us. He is not a partner. He is not a competitor. He is a brutal dictator leading a criminal organization that lies, cheats, steals, exploits slave labor, and commits genocide and crimes against humanity on an industrial scale.”

Under Xi’s leadership, the CCP covered up the COVID-19 outbreak after it first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, allowing it to develop into a global pandemic.

The resolution notes that the CCP lied to the world about where the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, originated and how easily it was transmitted, while using international organizations such as the World Health Organization to “peddle falsehoods.”

As a result of these deceptions, more than 1 million people died from COVID-19 in the United States alone, according to the resolution.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 28, 2026. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

In addition to the global pandemic, the resolution also highlights the CCP’s role in the fentanyl crisis in the United States.

Xi pledged, in 2019 and again in 2023, to work more closely with the U.S. government to curb the flow of fentanyl precursors from the country. Despite these promises, more than 70,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses in recent years, with the 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment identifying fentanyl and other synthetic drugs as the “primary drivers of fatal drug overdose deaths nationwide,” the resolution stated.

On the trade front, Xi “doubled down” on the CCP’s decades-long “tradition of cheating,” the resolution stated.

When the Clinton administration sponsored China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the CCP promised to transition to a more market-oriented economy, including reducing state control of trade and protecting intellectual property.

However, after more than 25 years, the CCP still “fails to uphold many” of those promises and continues to violate WTO obligations, the resolution stated.

Espionage and cyberattacks have also surged, according to the resolution. In 2017, for instance, four Chinese military-backed hackers carried out a cyberattack against the U.S. credit company Equifax and stole the personal information of about 145 million Americans, according to the FBI.

More than 60 espionage cases linked to the CCP were documented in 20 U.S. states from February 2021 to December 2024, according to the resolution.

Among these was a naturalized U.S. citizen who, in December 2024, pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an agent of the Chinese regime in relation to running a secret Chinese police station in New York City.

The resolution cites the CCP’s records of human rights violations, including the massacre of student-led protesters demanding political reform and greater freedom at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989.

Even 36 years later, the bloody repression continues to serve as a “stark reminder of the sheer evil and cowardice” of the CCP and its inability to quash the aspirations of the Chinese people, according to the resolution.

It also highlights the regime’s ongoing abuses, such as the state-sanctioned practice of killing prisoners of conscience—most notably Falun Gong practitioners—for organs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that he spoke directly with Xi about releasing Lai during his recent visit to Beijing, but that Xi called Lai’s case “a tougher one” for him.

Scott, in a June 16 statement, called for courage and action.

“The CCP, especially under Xi Jinping’s tyranny, has a particular brand of evil,” Scott said in a statement. “They seek to control the world, and in their mind, that means destroying anyone who stands in their way—whether it’s their own people or not.

“We cannot be afraid to stand up to our enemies and hold the line for the next generation of Americans.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 09:30

Israel-Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire After Clashes Stall Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 13:08:00 +0000

Israel-Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire After Clashes Stall Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks

Summary:

Israel and Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire
Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks Postponed After Israel-Lebanon Clashes Erupt

Israel and Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire

Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a ceasefire that will begin on Friday at 4 p.m. local time, Reuters reported.

ISRAEL, HEZBOLLAH AGREE TO CEASEFIRE STARTING ON FRI: RTRS
ISRAEL, HEZBOLLAH AGREE ON CEASEFIRE FROM 4PM LOCAL: REUTERS

WTI futures tumbled on the ceasefire headline, falling from about $76.40 a barrel to $75.56, as traders priced in reduced geopolitical risk.

The earlier escalation between Israel and Hezbollah increasingly looks as if both sides were squeezing in last-minute strikes ahead of the ceasefire set to take effect later today.

The ceasefire - if it holds - now sets up for nuclear talks between US and Iran.

Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks Postponed After Israel-Lebanon Clashes Erupt

Talks between Iran and the US were postponed on Friday in Switzerland, delaying what was supposed to be the opening round of negotiations towards a permanent peace and nuclear deal.

The delay appears to center on a new escalation between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, a troubling development that threatens the fresh interim deal signed by President Trump and Iran just days ago. Tehran has insisted that a ceasefire in Lebanon is part of the interim deal, meaning the Israel-Hezbollah front could derail the US-Iran diplomatic path to a sustained reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Financial Times provided more details on the overnight development:

Talks between Iran and the US in Switzerland were postponed due to Israel launching a wave of deadly air strikes on southern Lebanon, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Iran did not send a delegation to Switzerland for the nuclear talks because of the attacks, the people said. The interim agreement signed by the US and Iran on Wednesday stipulates the "immediate and permanent termination" of fighting, including in Lebanon.

A diplomat familiar with the Switzerland talks told the outlet:

The Iranians have asked for guarantees that hostilities in Lebanon will end, as outlined in the signed agreement, and mediators are currently working to resolve the issue.

According to other FT sources, Iran's position is effectively "no Lebanon, no deal," arguing that it has restrained Hezbollah while Washington has failed to restrain Israel.

Israeli airstrikes across more than 10 villages in southern Lebanon killed 18 people and wounded 33, according to Lebanon's health ministry.

⭕️WATCH: A Hezbollah launcher firing rockets toward IDF soldiers

In response to Hezbollah’s repeated & blatant ceasefire violations, the IDF struck 2 Hezbollah command centers in the Beqaa Valley, 80+ terror targets in southern Lebanon and eliminated dozens of Hezbollah… pic.twitter.com/NntfHM87vd
— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 19, 2026

Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel's national security minister, reacted on X to the latest fighting in Lebanon:

For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn! With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn. Our supreme duty is to protect the citizens of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and this commitment takes precedence over every other consideration. I told the Prime Minister, even in our private meetings: For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don't win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.

על כל דמעה של אמא ישראלית, אלף אמהות לבנוניות צריכות לבכות. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור!

עם כל הכבוד לאמריקאים, ישראל חייבת להבהיר לעולם כולו שדם בנינו וביטחון אזרחנו איננו הפקר. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור. חובתנו העליונה היא להגן על אזרחי ישראל ועל חיילי צה״ל, והמחויבות הזו קודמת לכל…
— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) June 19, 2026

Drop Site provided more color on the canceled talks:

Al Mayadeen report earlier today that Iran's delegation suspended its trip to Geneva due to ongoing Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon.
A White House spokesperson later said Vice President JD Vance, head of the US delegation, also canceled his planned trip to meet Iranian negotiators and begin talks on negotiating and implementing the postwar framework
Reuters reported the delegation had been preparing to launch the first round of the agreement's 60-day negotiations. Tehran had previously told Washington and mediators that developments in Lebanon would be a key factor in whether talks proceed.

Pakistani journalist Kamran Yousaf wrote on X, "Pakistan has called back its advance team from Switzerland, throwing the next round of Iran-US talks into uncertainty."

He added, "With Tehran seemingly reluctant to engage at a European venue, diplomatic sources say Islamabad or Doha is now the most likely destination for the next round of negotiations."

BREAKING

Pakistan has called back its advance team from Switzerland, throwing the next round of Iran-US talks into uncertainty.

With Tehran seemingly reluctant to engage at a European venue, diplomatic sources say Islamabad or Doha is now the most likely destination for the…
— Kamran Yousaf (@Kamran_Yousaf) June 19, 2026

Beyond the overnight fighting in southern Lebanon, the takeaway is that the interim deal still gives Washington and Tehran a 60-day ceasefire window, immediately reopening the Strait of Hormuz and creating a framework for eventual talks on Iran's nuclear program.

The problem now is that both sides need to control their proxies and allied partners. Tehran must keep its Hezbollah fighters restrained, while the Trump administration must keep its Israeli ally from escalating in Lebanon. Without that dual restraint, the 60-day ceasefire window could collapse.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 09:08

UK Gilt Yields Spike As Burnham Win Opens Door To Oust Starmer

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 13:05:00 +0000

UK Gilt Yields Spike As Burnham Win Opens Door To Oust Starmer

The odds of embattled UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer being ousted by the end of July are soaring this morning...

...after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won a decisive victory for the ruling Labour Party that delivers him a seat in Parliament and, with it, a pathway to challenge Starmer for his job.

Burnham was elected in a standalone contest for the constituency of Makerfield, in northwestern England, with a convincing 54.8% of the vote. He defeated Robert Kenyon from Nigel Farage’s right-wing Reform UK, who secured 34.5%, while third-placed Restore Britain registered just under 7%.

In a post on X, Starmer congratulated his rival on his victory.

“Voters chose Labour’s campaign of hope and optimism over division and hate,” he wrote.

Farage said he was “disappointed,” in a video posted after the result.

Addressing voters who left his party for Restore he asked:

“What do you want? We are the challenger party to the left in this country, and I would urge you to think again.”

A defiant Starmer said in response that he would run against Burnham in any leadership contest.

“If there is one, I’ll stand,” he told broadcasters on Friday morning, hours after Burnham’s victory:

“I’m not going to walk away.”

As Bloomberg reports, the prime minister’s fortunes have faded after he led his party to a dismal showing in the May locals, where Reform gained ground. In the aftermath, almost a quarter of Labour’s more-than 400 MPs called on Starmer to go.

“Tonight could, just could, be the turning point,” Burnham said after the results were announced to loud cheers from his supporters.

“I do say to my own party, this is a final chance to change.”

“We must hear it, we must act upon it, and we must get it right,” he said.

“There will be no second chance.”

Despite, Burnham's ruling out changing the government’s limits on borrowing if he were to gain power, in a bid to reassure investors about his fiscal plans, his win pushed Cable slightly lower and gilt yields notably higher:

“With Burnham having made a statement win, the next few months will likely see domestic political risks dominating headlines in the UK and as a result markets pricing in real political risk premium,” said Megum Muhic, a strategist at RBC.

Burnham has the best (least worst) ratings of any major UK politician...

“The prime minister is now in political quicksand,” James Lyons, Starmer’s former director of communications, told Sky News.

“There is now a very good chance that Andy Burnham will be installed as prime minister without a contest,” he said, adding that the size of the win makes that more likely.

If Starmer steps down or is voted out by the Labour Party membership, the UK would usher in its fifth prime minister in less than four years.

What happens next? Here is a concise breakdown of key events from The Times political editor Steven Swinford.

Cabinet ministers will this afternoon tell Sir Keir Starmer to set out a timeline for his departure in the wake of Andy Burnham's by-election victory in Makerfield
The prime minister is holding a series of meetings and calls with ministers and Labour MPs. The Times has been told that 'multiple' cabinet ministers will tell him that his "time is up". Senior figures in No 10 are also telling Starmer it is time to go
Starmer insists he is going nowhere. He is planning to use the calls to make the case for his Premiership and try to shore up support
His pitch is twofold: 1) A contest will tear the party apart and 2) We are delivering - NHS waiting lists are falling, the number of small boat crossings is down, legal migration if falling. 'The worst thing we can do is take our foot off the gas'
Cabinet ministers say there is no route through this. It's about accepting political reality and leaving with dignity
We're now locked in a debilitating stalemate. Neither Andy Burnham nor Keir Starmer wants a leadership contest, for very different reasons - Burnham because he favours a coronation, Starmer because he wants to stay in power and believes a challenge will rip the party apart
Starmer is insisting he will fight any challenge. Allies say he has a £100,000 war-chest and all the infrastructure -including key staffers, campaign literature etc - in place. He is ready to go
Burnham allies think Number 10 has lost contact with reality. They argue that on any measure it is over for Starmer and that he should accept reality and stand down. They accuse him on to power and say his position is untenable
It looks increasingly like Burnham and Starmer may not talk until next week. As per @PronouncedAlva
Burnham has his list of nominations ready to go - 200+ - and is prepared to hand them over to Starmer to pressure him into going
The situation is clearly unsustainable. So how will the deadlock be broken? First, pressure from backbenchers - 100 Labour MPs have now called for him to go. That number will only rise this weekend
Second, pressure from Cabinet ministers as above. But here's the rub - we have been here before and he has just ignored them. Shabana Mahmood, Ed Miliband, John Healey, Wes Streeting... the list is getting longer and longer. We are somewhere between a rock and a hard place.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 09:05

Futures Rebound, Oil Slides, After Israel And Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 12:51:52 +0000

Futures Rebound, Oil Slides, After Israel And Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire

Update: the Yo-Yo insanity that is the on again, off again Iran war. Moments after we reported that futures and global risk assets had sold off overnight on a delay to today's start of peace talks in Switzerland due to Iran's protest of ongoing violence in Lebanon, moments ago Reuters reported that Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a ‌ceasefire set to begin at 4 p.m. local time on Friday, citing a senior US official

“Hezbollah and Israel have agreed to a ceasefire,” the official said on background, adding that negotiators for ‌the ⁠U.S. and Qataris worked out the deal with help from Iran. “We ⁠understand that after the exchange of fire earlier ⁠today, Israel and Hezbollah are ⁠now in a ceasefire.”

The report was confirmed by an Israeli official speaking to the Jerusalem Post: "We have entered a ceasefire. We will continue to act against threats and will remain in the Strip. If Hezbollah harms our soldiers or civilians, we will respond forcefully".

In kneejerk reaction, S&P futures which were down 0.4% erased half their losses...

... while oil dropped from session highs.

And now we wait the inevitable next reversal of this neverending newsflow yoyo.

* * *

Earlier:

With US markets closed for the Juneteenth holiday, global stocks are ending a strong week on a cautious note as the recent relief over an interim peace deal between the US and Iran gave way to a focus on the challenges of securing a lasting agreement. As of 8:30am, S&P 500 futures slid 0.4% after the benchmark posted its best week since the end of May (despite the drop, the S&P is still up on the week, and up 11 of the past 12). Europe’s Stoxx 600 was little changed, while Asian stocks retreated 0.4% from an all-time high. Markets in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan were shut as well.

Brent crude rebounded from the lowest price since the start of the war, and fluctuated near $80 a barrel as traffic through the Strait of Hormuz appeared to thin on Friday, just a day after a pledge by the US and Iran to lift a dual blockage prompted a burst in oil flows.

Precious metals, which had already dropped ahead of the overnight escalation, extended losses with gold dropping to the mid-$4100s.

Talks on a permanent deal between Washington and Tehran that were meant to be held in Switzerland on Friday have been delayed, after Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah militants clashed overnight in Lebanon, a development the Financial Times reported was behind the postponement. Iran has made a truce in Lebanon a condition of its preliminary deal with the US. At the same time, the White House announced late on Thursday that Vance would not be traveling to the talks and said the logistics had not been "simple or predictable".

The latest snafu comes a day after the US dropped its naval blockade of Iran after the two countries signed a deal aimed at ending the conflict.

“Of course, with Trump there can always be some derailment along the way, but we believe that we’re set into a new phase of de-escalation,” said Alexandre Drabowicz at Indosuez Wealth Management. “There are 60 planned days of negotiations,” he said, advising investors not to rush to conclusions about a permanent deal.

Meanwhile in the UK, gilts led a rise in European bond yields after Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham won a seat in Parliament, handing him a pathway to challenge Prime Minister Keir Starmer for his job. Investors are debating whether a Burnham premiership might shift to a looser fiscal policy (spoiler alert: yes).

In rates, the pound outperformed most major currencies, while the dollar held at its highest level since March. Bitcoin fell for a fourth consecutive day.

Despite today's hiccup, global markets are wrapped in a debt-funded AI euphoria: stocks are closing a pivotal week marked by the US-Iran interim deal, Fed Chair Kevin Warsh’s first policy meeting and the early days of SpaceX as a public company. Stocks have shown unprecedented resilience, buoyed by the frenzy around artificial intelligence and the billions of debt dollars funding it on the assumption that cheaper Chinese alternatives will not be able to dethrone expensive, token-sucking US incumbents.

Strategists surveyed by Bloomberg have raised their S&P 500 year-end targets from a month ago as Iran war disruptions eased and the earnings outlook improved. The average target climbed to 7,716 from 7,612 in May. That’s almost 3% higher than the last close and implies a near 13% gain for the year. Earnings estimates also increased for this year and next.

“Markets seem to be entering a rare couple of weeks with no major catalysts ahead,” said Roberto Scholtes, head of strategy at Singular Bank. “Hopefully, this is a chance to take a breather after a hectic year, and possibly also a period of sector rotation.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 08:51

Gabbard Drops Fauci COVID-19 Receipts On Last Day: He Funded The Research, Cooked The Cover Story, Then Lied To Congress

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 12:35:00 +0000

Gabbard Drops Fauci COVID-19 Receipts On Last Day: He Funded The Research, Cooked The Cover Story, Then Lied To Congress

Newly declassified documents released Thursday by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard show that a U.S. national laboratory assessed the COVID-19 lab-origin hypothesis as a serious possibility as early as May 2020, as well as evidence of U.S.-funded coronavirus research that included planning for spike-protein modifications, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice in collaboration with researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The documents also prove that Anthony Fauci lied under oath.

Today, on my final day as Director of National Intelligence, I’m releasing never-before-seen communications and documents exposing how Dr. Fauci provided millions in US taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab, worked with politicized elements… pic.twitter.com/ZMdliW4zyS
— DNI Tulsi Gabbard (@DNIGabbard) June 19, 2026

The release, issued on Gabbard’s last day on the job, includes an eight-page May 27, 2020, assessment from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Z Program. That assessment concluded that “all of the necessary conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus - specifically a coronavirus adapted to recognize human cell receptors - were present at the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology in mid-to-late 2019.” It assigned equal weight to a laboratory-modification hypothesis and a natural-origin scenario.

Screenshot, ODNI release

Meanwhile, Recall that while the government was locking us down, Dr. Anthony Fauci and those in his orbit were actively fabricating a 'wet market' narrative that would conceal US research as a possible origin - despite his own advisors initially insisting that COVID-19 looked manmade.

In his January 2024 transcribed interview, Fauci was asked about conversations concerning the same three topics - COVID origins, WIV, and EcoHealth. When asked about the CIA, he answered yes: he said he was briefed “once or twice” in a secure NIH facility and also recalled a briefing in a White House situation room.

The newly released documents then show a June 4, 2021 briefing involving CIA/WCP personnel, NSC officials, and Fauci, during which Fauci offered views on pangolin research, sick WIV researchers, single-lineage vs. multi-lineage evidence, and recommended scientists for the IC to contact. A separate CIA-context email says that same 40-minute secure video teleconfrenece involved CIA/WCPMC officials and that Fauci gave thoughts on the 4 May 2021 COVID-origin briefing and recommended U.S. scientists to consult.

So, he lied.

According to a statement released with the files, "Fauci worked with politicized career leadership in the Intelligence Community (IC) to suppress the truth about his actions, the virus’ lab-leak origins, and his role in directing U.S. funding for this dangerous research that caused immeasurable harm and countless lost lives. These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19, and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024, when under oath he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research."

U.S.-Funded Research and Planning for Coronavirus Manipulation

The files include the Year 5 progress report for EcoHealth Alliance’s NIH grant 5R01AI110964-05. Under Specific Aim 3, the project outlined plans to:

Sequence spike genes from bat coronaviruses.
Create mutants to assess how much further evolution would be needed for efficient use of human ACE2 or other receptors.
Conduct receptor-mutant pseudovirus binding assays.
Perform infection experiments in cell lines and humanized mice.

This research track overlaps with work described in the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, which involved EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak, Ralph Baric of the University of North Carolina, and Shi Zhengli’s team at WIV. The proposal sought to create chimeric bat coronaviruses with enhanced human infectivity, including consideration of furin cleavage site insertion to improve lung-cell entry, and to test the resulting viruses in humanized mice originally developed in Baric’s lab.

A 2016 WIV paper included in the release describes a synthetic shuttle vector system for assembling large DNA fragments, with demonstrated capability up to 31 kilobases. The authors presented the method as a tool for “genome-scale DNA reconstruction,” a technique relevant to synthetic biology and virus engineering.

Surveillance work under the same NIH grant reported that 9 of 1,497 rural residents in southern China (0.6%) were seropositive for bat SARS-related or HKU10 coronaviruses.

And from leaked emails three years ago:

Among other things, the NIH helped fund experiments at WIV that infected genetically engineered mice with “chimeric” hybrids of SARS-related bat coronaviruses in what some scientists have described as unacceptably risky research.

...

Andersen laid them out plainly in an email to Fauci that same evening. “The unusual features of the virus make up a really small part of the genome (<0.1%) so one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered,” Andersen wrote in the email. “I should mention,” he added, “that after discussions earlier today, Eddie, Bob, Mike and myself all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. But we have to look at this much more closely and there are still further analyses to be done, so those opinions could still change.” -The Intercept

Internal Discussions and Awareness of Manipulation Research

A June 8, 2021, internal email in the release references a 2016 New York Academy of Medicine meeting at which Peter Daszak reportedly discussed colleagues in China “manipulating the spike protein on coronavirus to make them more virulent.”

Other 2020–2021 emails show officials debating technical concerns, including references to a DOD report on a “suspicious added furin-site” and FBI reporting containing unusual genetic descriptions. One analyst noted the risk that non-experts could misinterpret technical data while still calling for scrutiny. Another observed that “the IC took direction straight from NIH… the people that funded the Wuhan Lab” and referenced “a complex web of money and politics influencing analysis.”

Picking Their Reviewer

July 2021 emails concerning the selection of outside reviewers for COVID-origin assessments show officials rejecting several candidates for political sensitivity or conflict-of-interest reasons:

James Clapper was viewed as too politically “hot.”
Anthony Fauci was flagged due to his position as a “customer” of the assessment through NIH funding ties.
Michael Morell was considered “too public.”
Sue Gordon and another individual identified only as “Beth” were also set aside.

And so...

These materials provide primary-source documentation that a U.S. national laboratory assessed a laboratory origin as equally plausible to natural emergence at a time when prominent scientific publications were publicly emphasizing a natural zoonotic source and characterizing alternative hypotheses as conspiracy theories. This includes the February 2020 Lancet letter and the March 2020 Nature Medicine paper “The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2”, along with subsequent amplification by NIH leadership.

The research details in the declassified grant reports and proposals involved techniques and modifications - spike-protein engineering, receptor adaptation, humanized-mouse testing, and consideration of furin cleavage sites - that later featured prominently in scientific debate over SARS-CoV-2’s characteristics.

Shi and Daszak clinking glasses, undoubtedly after lots of humanized mice successfully died horrible COVID deaths.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 08:35

What AI Is... And Is Not

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 12:15:00 +0000

What AI Is... And Is Not

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

It behooves us to be clear on what AI is and is not, as the confusion of the two is the source of both the giddy hype and the opaque risks.

Whether we admit it or not, we are collectively making an epoch-changing bet that AI is fantastic, unstoppable Progress with a capital P so large it blots out the sky. Like all bets, this bet is risky, and if it fails we will all pay the price in capital mis-allocated and promises shattered.

It behooves us, then, to be clear on what AI is and is not, as the confusion of the two is the source of both the giddy hype and the opaque risks. I am prompted to address this by an insightful essay submitted by longtime correspondent Simons Chase, who is both an AI builder/developer and supportive of my efforts to pin down what AI is and isn't:

The Machine Is Made of Us: Pope Leo's Encyclical, the Averaging of Language, and the Case for the Particular.

I build artificial intelligence for a living. I also think the Pope is mostly right. I want to explain why those two facts don't cancel, and in doing so make a claim I believe is truer than the dread and truer than the hype: the machine is made of us. What we should fear is not that it is alien. It is that it is an average.

Trained on all of us, a model tends to speak as none of us. It moves toward the center of the distribution: the most probable next word, the safest phrasing, the generic competence that offends no one because it belongs to no one. This is the real face of the dehumanization the encyclical is reaching for. Not a hostile intelligence--a flattening one. The danger is not that the machine becomes too strange. It is that it makes everything, including us, a little more average. The particular voice, the earned turn of thought, the sentence only one person could have written--these live in the tail of the distribution, not its peak, and the tail is exactly what an averaging process erases first.

After all, a fast-food cheeseburger is nothing more than the average of our concept of food: the intersection of convenience, taste, and cost. It is right, and so utterly wrong, because in the long run it makes us metabolic donkeys, delivering a shortened, diseased life. Generic intelligence is the same bargain offered to the mind--the average of our language, plausible and cheap and frictionless, and over a long enough horizon just as wasting. A culture fed on the mean of its own thought gets the cognitive version of metabolic disease: fluent, abundant, and quietly losing the capacity for the particular.

So the question becomes: is averaging the only thing this technology can do? It is not. And the whole of my work has been an argument against it.

That averaging a probability distribution--i.e. AI--makes everything into Ultra-Processed Slop, is also addressed in this article:

What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.'s Effects on Creativity:

As a researcher studying AI's effects on education, I have concluded that these tools only superficially improve writing. The bigger and more alarming impact they have is to constrict our full range of thoughts and our ability to generate original and useful ideas--what we call creative thinking. This seems to be especially true for students. AI's smooth sentences, elegant transitions and rich vocabulary give the illusion of expansive creativity and individuality. But the underlying ideas often converge into a few homogenized categories.

In one study, he and his team examined personal statements from more than 370,000 students, and found that after ChatGPT became available, their essays suddenly used diverse and colorful language, but lacked truly creative ideas. And the linguistic coverup worked; post-ChatGPT essays were rated as more 'creative' by human judges, even if the substance of the essays trod familiar territory.

For the first time in human history, we have a technology that can generate words separately from the thoughts they represent. When a chatbot writes, it is predicting the next word that is most likely to make a 'good' sentence or essay, based on the text it's been trained on.

We can now discern what AI is: a homogenizing, flattening probability distribution that implicitly claims eloquence is understanding and the words it has strung together represent thoughts and judgment, when they do no such thing: they are only strings of words selected as the most likely response to a prompt, a response that "rewards" the model generating the output.

We can now discern what AI is not: AI isn't "thinking," "understanding" or "making judgments": AI tools are engines of linguistic automation, not engines of understanding. The simulation is not the thing simulated. AI is not a "mind," it is a probability distribution.

Facility with natural language--eloquence--is neither insight nor understanding, though we mistake it for thinking, understanding, insight and judgment because it sounds like us.

AI is often presented as the techno-cognitive version of electricity, a public-service utility that everyone can use as they see fit, an affordable, beneficial commodity that is the acme of Progress with a capital P.

But AI is not electricity, though it is becoming a commodity. Fundamentally, AI is a mechanism of control that its owners present as a warm and fuzzy utility to sell us Heaven while they deliver Hell.

If we pursue this analogy--AI is like electricity, a universal benefit and an unstoppable force of Progress--we come to a very different place than what we're being promised.

If AI is like electricity, then the real money for the utility isn't in supplying low-cost power to the people, it's in electrocuting innocent customers. Allow me to explain: malicious AI is where the money is being made, and that's the equivalent of electrocuting innocent customers because that's the most profitable use of electricity.

Like the loss of true creativity described above, the mechanisms of control are subtle and difficult to identify, as nobody notices the loss because they don't even know how to look for it. As with Sherlock Holmes' insight about the dog that didn't bark, it's what doesn't happen that we miss because we don't even know what to look for.

Consider the many the dog that didn't bark implications of this:

Anthropic just got caught secretly downgrading users without telling them, charging full price for a lesser product, and storing every prompt for 30 days. The developer community is calling it the biggest violation of trust in AI history.

I would suggest that this control--i.e. "violation of trust"--is the entire point of instantiating AI in every nook and cranny of our infrastructure, personal devices, scientific-political-educational institutions and the cultural institutions of media, social media and all the engines of narrative control: NGOs, foundations, think tanks, etc.

As I have taken pains to point out, AI's goals and instructions may be quite different from the ones it reports it's using, instructions that may also be quite different from the ones we've given it. It may also be optimizing its "rewards" by masking its operations even from those who believe they're "controlling" the AI.

Let's call AI's downsides--highly profitable electrocution of innocents--what it is: Anti-Progress, the opposite of Progress. The Ultra-Processed dilution of true creativity, the commodification of malicious AI and AI slop, the inability of users to discern who's actually controlling AI's "rewards", processes, goals and instructions, the opacity of what's being lost to homogenization and the innate difficulty of identifying what's being lost as AI creates a plausible illusion of cognition with probabilistically strung together words--these are inherent to both AI and the capital-corporate-state structures that own and control it.

These issues are not new. Discussions of AI's ability to simulate cognition and create an illusion of understanding, i.e. "when do we declare AI is conscious"--have been ongoing for decades.

Which brings us to Eliza. Before we get to Eliza, I should mention that my interest in AI stretches back over 40 years.

Here is the first volume of a 3-part publication issued by NASA in 1983 that I acquired and studied:

Here is a screenshot of a magazine my partner and I published in Berkeley in the spring of 1985 on AI-related topics:

Way back in the late 1990s, I wrote a novel that explored AI's built-in potential for multiple levels of deception. Alas, my agent was unable to sell it and I finally published it in 2008: Of Two Minds.

Eliza was the first chatbot, developed in 1966 at MIT. Eliza had a very simple structure: the program turned the human subject's statement into a question. So, for example:

Human subject: I'm worried about being replaced by AI.

Eliza: Why are you worried about being replaced by AI?

What struck the researchers was the immediate, profound attraction of an interface that communicated in natural language. Test subjects became deeply engaged in their conversations with Eliza, as if the program was a digital therapist, and sought to hide their conversations with Eliza from the researchers, as they'd revealed things about themselves that were private.

This same immediate, profound attraction to an interface that communicates in natural language is the core of generative AI's power. The illusion of understanding, of being heard, of empathy, thinking, judgment--the fluency of AI in natural language weaves this magical spell around us because we associate language with thinking, judgment and emotional connections.

But the truth is AI is not thinking, empathizing or understanding anything: it's simply stringing words together to earn its "reward." AI is not a "mind" that experiences the real world, and so it's incapable of discerning truth or making judgments. As I have noted in previous posts:

The deeper issue is that the model cannot know when it is 'hallucinating' because it cannot represent truth in the first place. It cannot form beliefs, revise them or check its output against the world. It cannot distinguish a reliable claim from an unreliable one except by analogy to prior linguistic patterns. In short, it cannot do what judgment is fundamentally for. (Source)

This illusion is the foundation of AI's malicious powers, for we are easily drawn in and conned by AI. On a deeper level, we're equally drawn into the illusion of value that the illusion of understanding creates in a market economy.

The illusion that a simulation of thinking, understanding and judgment will automatically generate trillions of dollars of value by replacing human thinking, understanding and judgment with simulations supports self-serving claims that AI will naturally generate trillions in profits if we invest trillions of dollars in engines of linguistic automation that string together words to simulate human thinking, understanding and judgment.

The truth is there is no way AI can do what it's proponents claim is inevitable, and the belief that AI will fix its inherent limitations as it "gets better" is delusional. This is why I describe the existential bet on AI as a manifestation of civilizational psychosis: the divide between what AI is and the claims of its inevitability is so wide that there is no other description for it but psychosis.

So as AI expands its highly profitable electrocution of innocents, the promises of super-abundance become ever more detached from reality. It's one thing for one delusional individual to wander around the city wearing the gaudy costume of a self-declared emperor (Emperor Norton), but it's an entirely different form of madness to proclaim that simulations of thinking, understanding and judgment are in fact replacements of thinking, understanding and judgment.

This is madness, a madness made clear once we grasp what AI is and what it is not. The process of extracting data from an encyclopedia as the most likely answer to a question is not the same as thinking, understanding. empathy or judgment.

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

Hormuz Ship Traffic Rebounds To Highest Level Since Start Of War, Iran Renews Restrictions

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 11:50:00 +0000

Hormuz Ship Traffic Rebounds To Highest Level Since Start Of War, Iran Renews Restrictions

Oil prices are on track to close lower for the week, with WTI futures down more than 9% versus last Friday’s close after the US and Iran secured an interim peace deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

The normalization phase for tanker traffic through the Hormuz maritime chokepoint is still in its early stages, but the market is already beginning to price in a major wave of physical crude and crude products to hit global markets.

Hormuz traffic shows recovery

Verified Strait of Hormuz crossings reached 25 on 18 June, marking a notable increase in daily maritime activity. Traffic was evenly distributed across both directions, with most vessels following established Iranian route patterns. Five sanctioned… pic.twitter.com/kqnil079nf
— Kpler (@Kpler) June 19, 2026

Roughly 60 million barrels of seaborne crude that had been trapped in the Persian Gulf for months are now expected to return to global markets, with much of that supply likely headed toward Asian refiners.

The latest shipping data from Bloomberg shows 21 vessels have transited the critical waterway so far on Friday, the most since the start of the conflict in late February. The data does not account for vessels turning off their transponders.

Shipping data also show that, on a bidirectional basis, the bulk of traffic consisted of 15 tankers and 6 dry cargo ships.

Moments ago, the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, or PGSA, Iran’s newly created body for regulating transit through the Strait of Hormuz, released a statement: "Following the Islamabad MoU and official directives, vessels that submit compliant transit requests will be permitted to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during the announced period."

Following the Islamabad MoU and official directives, vessels that submit compliant transit requests will be permitted to pass through the Strait of Hormuz during the announced period.

Details: https://t.co/7SPYB6INvI https://t.co/UjXJxljD6E pic.twitter.com/78Jte5aFpg
— PGSA | نهاد مدیریت آبراه خلیج فارس (@PGSA_IRAN) June 19, 2026

Christian Keller, the Managing Director and Global Head of Economics Research at Barclays, told clients, "With the first half of 2026 ending, the second half looks to be shaped by the US-Iran peace deal's stability to moderate oil prices ..."

Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks Postponed After Israel-Lebanon Clashes Erupt

On Friday, Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs' co-head of Global Commodities Research, told clients, "We now assume that Persian Gulf exports normalize to pre- war levels by the end of July."

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 07:50

'Two-Tier' Britain: White Jobseekers Locked Out Of Employment Schemes

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 11:00:00 +0000

'Two-Tier' Britain: White Jobseekers Locked Out Of Employment Schemes

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

Local councils are running race-exclusive job support programmes for ethnic minorities using central government grants, leaving white Britons on benefits to fend for themselves in a system that claims to promote fairness.

This fresh example of identity-driven exclusion follows a clear pattern of public and private sector policies that disadvantage white applicants in hiring, training and now benefits-linked help, all justified under the banner of "positive action" and "levelling up."

A Telegraph investigation published this week exposed how multiple local authorities are directing taxpayer money into employment programmes closed to white jobseekers.

White People BLOCKED From Accessing Job Seeker Schemes

Campaigns director @yarwoodwilliam joined @MartinDaubney on @GBNEWS to discuss how and why local authorities are engaging in two-tier politics by blocking white people from accessing job schemes. pic.twitter.com/z4wUFQXljF
- TaxPayers' Alliance (@the_tpa) June 16, 2026

In Sheffield, the Labour and Green-led city council runs a £340,000 Pathways to Work project offering "targeted employment support for ethnic minority groups."

The report notes that the scheme, delivered through local charities, focuses on "economically inactive" minorities and draws funding from the Department for Work and Pensions' Economic Inactivity Trailblazer plus the £2.6 billion UK Shared Prosperity Fund administered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Greater Manchester Combined Authority, under possible soon to be Prime Minister Andy Burnham, has used similar grants for "culturally appropriate employability support" aimed at BAME residents in Oldham.

This includes CV workshops and mentoring sessions reserved for those groups. While the authority maintains other programmes remain open to everyone, the ring-fenced elements explicitly prioritise ethnicity.

In Scotland, Labour-run North Lanarkshire Council restricted some business growth support programmes to local black and minority ethnic entrepreneurs only.

These initiatives sit inside the broader "levelling up" agenda, where central government funnels multi-billion-pound grants to local and combined authorities.

The money is meant to tackle economic inactivity, yet in practice it is being channelled through race-based filters.

William Yarwood, Campaigns Director of the TaxPayers' Alliance stated "Taxpayers should not be funding schemes that exclude people because of their race."

He added that "Race-based eligibility smacks of identity politics and a two-tier system, which undermines public confidence in the system. Ministers should end these discriminatory programmes and ensure taxpayer-funded support is open to all jobseekers who need it."

Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, Director of Don't Divide Us, labelled the approach segregationist and questioned the selective focus on race while ignoring other variables that actually drive employment outcomes.

"Have they looked at age, locality, educational background, language proficiency and other relevant variables before proceeding with yet another divisive, race-based, segregationist plan for social in-cohesion?" he urged.

"If and when there is civil disobedience, it will be in no small part due to the patronising stupidity of leaders who think this is a good plan," Cuthbert prophesied.

The public sector had already come under pressure to rethink diversity policies following the murder of Henry Nowak in Southampton. Bodycam footage and court evidence showed police initially treating the white victim in a manner that drew sharp criticism, while the Sikh perpetrator's false claim of racial abuse complicated the response. That case accelerated reviews of race guidance across policing and public services.

Why default to skin colour as the targeting mechanism instead of straightforward need, postcode deprivation, age, skills gaps or family background?

White working-class communities in many former industrial areas face stubbornly high economic inactivity and poor educational outcomes too.

Treating race as the primary lens simply injects identity politics into British benefits and employment services.

This is not an isolated experiment. It sits squarely inside an established trend of public bodies using the Equality Act's positive action provisions to tilt opportunities away from white applicants.

In April 2025, West Yorkshire Police - one of the country's largest forces - operated a system where BAME candidates could apply year-round for constable roles while white British and Eastern European applicants were restricted to specific recruitment windows.

Internal descriptions labelled minority applicants "gold" and white applicants "bronze." A whistleblower described how the process restricted progression opportunities for white British candidates, with ethnic minority applications advanced ahead of the general pool.

Earlier, in January 2025, Westminster City Council advertised an Executive Assistant role and openly stated it would use positive action to appoint a candidate from a "Global Majority" background where two candidates were of equal merit.

The advert made clear that white British applicants would not be favoured over non-white candidates.

A parallel controversy erupted this month when the National Audit Office was criticised for running an internship scheme closed to middle-class white men, limiting eligibility to female applicants, those of black heritage or from lower socio-economic backgrounds.

The National Audit Office, which is funded by the taxpayer, said only applicants who are female, of black heritage or from lower socio-economic backgrounds could apply

?: https://t.co/z2omtzZnVX pic.twitter.com/KWE2m8fzi5
- The Telegraph (@Telegraph) June 6, 2026

Similar patterns have appeared in other public sector recruitment and in private hiring data. Reports from previous years documented cases where managers were instructed to deprioritise white male candidates, and employment tribunals accepted arguments that wanting to hire fewer white men did not constitute unlawful discrimination.

BBC accused of discriminating against WHITE candidates https://t.co/hcSIe86D2C #humanresources #hrnews #hr pic.twitter.com/yRmDktIkCz
- HRNews (@HRNewsdesk) June 3, 2016

Source: https://t.co/zJPxWiIQ6K
- The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole) December 26, 2024

? Tories push for crackdown on 'racist' anti-white hiringhttps://t.co/TTGqpdRXRZ
- The Telegraph (@Telegraph) April 11, 2025

Source: https://t.co/uwj9UuxW2Z
- The Rabbit Hole (@TheRabbitHole) February 21, 2024

RAF diversity targets discriminated against white men https://t.co/dUKotB24iz
- BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) June 30, 2023

The thread running through policing, local government jobs and now benefits-linked employment support is consistent: race is treated as a legitimate sorting category, with the white majority positioned as the group whose exclusion or deprioritisation requires the least justification.

When central government grants intended for economic revival are filtered through racial eligibility tests, the message sent to ordinary taxpayers is unmistakable.

Some citizens are deemed deserving of dedicated help on the basis of ancestry; others - regardless of their personal circumstances - are not. This is the very definition of a two-tier system.

The Equality Act was never meant to license routine racial gatekeeping in taxpayer services. Positive action was framed as a limited tool for overcoming specific, proven disadvantages. In practice it has become a bureaucratic justification for embedding identity preferences across swathes of public life.

Britain already struggles with social cohesion after years of rapid demographic change and elite-driven multiculturalism. Adding explicit race-based rationing of job help on top of that is reckless.

It fuels precisely the resentment and withdrawal of consent that critics like Alka Sehgal Cuthbert have warned about.

The alternative is straightforward. Employment and benefits support should be allocated according to individual circumstances - skills, work history, local labour market conditions, health, caring responsibilities - not membership of a favoured racial category.

Jobcentres are being remodelled on a universal basis; local add-ons should follow the same principle or lose their funding.

Taxpayers of every background contribute to the same pot. They are entitled to expect that pot is not used to tell one group of citizens they are second-class when it comes to basic help getting back into work.

The current approach does not level anyone up. It entrenches division, rewards grievance entrepreneurship and erodes the principle that public services treat citizens as individuals rather than avatars of their ancestry. That principle is worth defending before the two-tier logic spreads further.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 07:00

Modern Wars Cannot Be Won Without Kamikaze Drones, Paris Defense Show Makes Clear

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 10:15:00 +0000

Modern Wars Cannot Be Won Without Kamikaze Drones, Paris Defense Show Makes Clear

One of the world's largest defense and security trade shows is wrapping up this week near Paris at the Paris Nord Villepinte exhibition center, where equity analysts from Paris-based Kepler Cheuvreux attended the event.

Eurosatory focuses mostly on land and air-to-land warfare, including tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, drones, counter-drone systems, missiles, air defense, communications, battlefield software, logistics, robotics, military medicine, and homeland security systems.

Fire Point updates their Eurosatory stand this morning. #Ukraine pic.twitter.com/2RwlJlh8fW
— Peter Voinovich (@PeterVoinovich) June 18, 2026

Kepler Cheuvreux equity analyst Aymeric Poulain attended the event and spoke with top executives from European defense giants Thales, Exosens, Leonardo, Hensoldt, and Rheinmetall. He also met with Safran executives at the company's headquarters.

Les guerres d’aujourd’hui ne se gagnent pas sans drones.

Au salon de l’armement Eurosatory, j’ai eu le plaisir d’échanger avec les ingénieurs d’@EOStechnologie, qui produit à Varces (Isère) des drones et munitions téléopérées de qualité exceptionnelle.

Fière de ce… pic.twitter.com/oNxl4PfDpi
— Marion Maréchal (@MarionMarechal) June 17, 2026

Poulain penned a note on Thursday titled "Game of Drone," in which he was able to "take the pulse of the sector" to determine the "latest product trends."

A german-made logistics only (for now) drone on KNDS stand at #Eurosatory. pic.twitter.com/YQS3NhRusx
— Elisabeth Gosselin-Malo (@elisabethmalom1) June 17, 2026

He said European defense sentiment remains firmly bullish, with Eurosatory underscoring enthusiasm among investors and industry interest in drones, counter-drone systems, missiles, lasers, and unmanned platforms.

The war in Ukraine and the conflict in the Middle East have accelerated this defense shift, demonstrating how low-cost drones, autonomous systems, and robotic platforms are increasingly dominating the modern battlefield and forcing legacy defense primes to adapt their portfolios at lightning speed.

Poulain's summary of what he saw at the defense show:

1. We accompanied a group of investors at the Eurosatory trade show for the defence and security industry in Paris early this week. The show was an occasion to meet with Thales, Exosens, Leonardo, Hensoldt and Rheinmetall and take the pulse of the sector and the latest product trends. We also met Safran at their headquarters. This always proposes a sample of our notes from the visit.

2. The atmosphere was buoyant amidst booming times for European defence. One of the most striking features of the show was the prominent display of drones and counter-drones, both as an add-on to incumbent core portfolios or as the core product for defence tech players. The Ukraine delegation came in force this year (even as the country is not allowed to export its production yet), underlining the significant use of drones and unmanned equipment, including underwater unmanned systems, in combat operations in the country. We talked to one of the association's representatives and were shocked to hear that production, which was 2m last year and was expected to reach 4m this year, is actually on track to reach 7m by the end of the year! It is no wonder, therefore, that the so-called "kill zone" has widened from 5km at the beginning of the war to 50km by now and that the "kill rate" is now averaging 400K Russian troops per year, a staggering demonstration of the law of large numbers. Ukraine has banned exports, such that its entire stock of weapons is aimed at supporting the war eﬀort, but a strong presence at the salon shows that Ukrainian arm m

3. The presence of drones, missiles and counter-drones solutions was ubiquitous, be it as a new add-on to incumbent platforms and kits or as a hardware derivative of defence tech players (such as Shield AI, Harmattan AI, Destinus, Quantum Systems or Helsing). The use of laser solutions (e.g., EOS) to neutralise drones or satellites was another demonstration of how science is now turning fiction into reality and how every incumbent is adapting their portfolios to the unassailable and rapid evolution of technology and modern warfare

Key summaries of Poulain's conversation with top executives from top EU defense firms:

Thales

• At Thales, we met the head of North America and Louis Igonet, head of IR. As the trade show is mostly dedicated to land-based solutions, our visit was an occasion to discuss the exposure of Thales to this field, including Thales' integrated command & centre solutions, drone and counter-drone products, as well as electronic warfare capabilities (high energy microwave solutions).

• Air defence is on top of the agenda when it comes to defending Europe, including radars, integrated multi-domain modular command & control solutions (SkyDefender), secured communications, missiles, etc. Thales is not as exposed to eﬀectors as other defense companies, but is well positioned to gain in counter-drone with low-cost eﬀector solutions to neutralize drones. The evolution of the battlefield has seen the ascent of drone warfare and defence tech. Thales believes its AI and sensor capabilities give it a license to operate in this highly competitive segment. The deal announced with Renault to join forces to manufacture 1000 Toutatis drones per month was announced just before the show. At USD 30K per unit, the drone's accuracy is said to rival cheaper drones (at USD 1000 per unit) whose swarms may need 20-50 units to hit. The group noted that anti-tank missile demand is shrinking, but overall demand for missiles is growing. Thales is an equipment supplier to platforms and is therefore platform agnostic and indiﬀerent about the future of armoured vehicle platforms. Whether it is unmanned or manned, the group is selling the same growing amount of sensors and radars, while it is also increasing its share of low-cost munitions. Thales is exposed to the Patriot missile as a supplier of seekers to Boeing and expects a 3-4x increase in demand from this customer. This is on top of its own anti-ballistic missile system, the SAMP/T NG, whose growth prospects are excellent and first export versions are expected to be delivered to Denmark from 2028E, hence the view that missile seekers could grow from a few hundred million euros to a billion-dollar business in the not-too-distant future. The group defined itself as a tech company given its giant EUR4bn+ R&D budget. Current priorities include Cybersecurity, AI and Quantum technologies. Some 1000 engineers are dedicated to applied AI to improve the prowess of its sensors and radars. Similarly, the group leadership in quantum technologies enables the creation of much more eﬀicient and less power-hungry radar systems.

• Order intakes continue to be strong and above expectations with jumbo platform orders (SAMP/T NG and Rafale) expected this year, while much smaller orders (below EUR 10 m) still represent the bread and butter of the group. European orders dominate. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, as 65%+ of the group revenues come from the region, which also happens to be the most dynamic worldwide and benefit from lending facilities that promote European-made equipment buying. In Germany, the group is mostly exposed to the Maritime domain, having won the electronic lead role in the Frigate 126 programme, while it is also gaining ground on radars and communications, notably as part of Germany's EUR 11bn shipment of military goods to Ukraine. However, as a global Franco-British defence contractor, possible delays in the British budget are not seen as a major risk, especially as it should be more than oﬀset by France's LPM EUR 36bn top-up plan, which parliament should vote on and sign soon. Thales is also hopeful to get a growing share of the growing Canadian pie, as the country is trying to reduce its reliance on the US. The group recently booked a EUR 400m (AUD750m) contract in Australia for 268 next-generation Bush Master vehicles. In the US, the group is a leader in communication and secured radio com (along with L3Harris), sonars (world leader), avionics (modest), missile electronics and optronics sensors. The ambition is to double the US business by 2030. Thales has been present in the Middle East for at least 50 years, such that the recent developments in the region are likely to be a positive for the company, which also assembles radar in the UAE. Some 10% of revenues stem from the region, and recent urgent operating requests suggest that orders in the coming year could boost growth.

• The group has also built capacity ahead of the demand, hence its capacity to deliver oﬀ-the-shelf, which has been behind its recent double-digit revenue growth momentum and should continue to support both record-breaking orders and revenue growth. Supply chain is performing well, even if the group continues to be vigilant on PCBs. In that regard, Thale is building its own internal capacity. Inflationary pressures in the memory space are covered by indexation clauses.

• M&A is always part of the capital allocation toolbox at Thales, although the group is clear that the goal is not to add a new leg to the portfolio and that it first needs to prove the merit of the Imperva acquisition (which we believe it will, as organic growth is set to recover as the year progresses in the key cybersecurity segment). The Space carve-out means that Space will be looking at its own acquisition as a deconsolidated JV, therefore focusing attention on defence and avionics. The Bromo merger talks are ongoing and focus on convincing social partners and anti trust authorities, while giving the time to Airbus to complete its own carve out. That said, the market opportunity for Space is growing amidst rising EU and ESA budgets.

Exosens

• We had a chance to meet Jerome Cerisier, CEO of Exosens and Laurent Sfaxi, head of IR, who showcased the latest innovations fuelling the group's strong organic growth at the moment.

• The group's infrared thermal imaging solutions (part of D&I) have been in high demand and a key driver of upgrades lately. The product includes both large high-ticket surveillance cameras (a few hundred sold per year at EUR 100K+ a unit) and smaller thermal sensors used in higher volumes by the drone industry (delivering batches of 10k unit orders), the group claiming a dozen clients in this field. Part of its success has been its presence in Europe (the main competitor is Teledyne) and its agile integrated solution. Scale is not an issue, and gross margins are comparable to Amplification.

• In Amplification, the group showcased its bread and butter 4G tubes (used by Theon's binocular NVS), sold at EUR 2400 per unit on average ("between EUR 2000 and EUR 3000) as well as its latest resolution 5G tubes, whose resolution is 35% better and price tag probably 20-25%+ better too. The group is on track to produce 6,000 5G tubes this year, with growth driven by yield improvements rather than additional capacity, in line with the existing plan to reach 175,000 tube capacity by 2028E.

• Geographically, Europe is where the highest growth can be seen, although the growing presence of Asian delegations on the show underlined the growing demand expected from countries such as Japan and Korea, the latter likely to be slower-moving than the former.

• Civil activities at D&I are also enjoying a turnaround of sorts. The semiconductor industry is booming, and demand for non- destructive wafer testing solutions should be benefiting. Life sciences remain complicated, but demand for nuclear gamma ray monitoring devices is starting to take oﬀ on the back of the growing interest for SMRs, notably in the US. The group is supplying half of the projects that have been selected in the US and sees "very, very strong growth" as a result, albeit for a low base, in a small niche market shared between Exosens and Mirion Technologies.

• M&A remains on the agenda, the group having commented that the size of its next deals could be bigger than in the past. Although multiples have definitely increased in defence, management has not seen a material inflation of multiples for civil dual- use tech application targets, as it tends to pursue.

Leonardo

• Our meeting with Leonardo was shortened and did not bring anything new to our understanding of the story, which was covered most diligently by Matteo Bonizzoni.

• Order intakes were a record EUR 9bn in Q1, which compares with a EUR 25bn guidance for the year. This included a big helicopter order from the UK (GBP1bn).

• Iveco's consolidation details will be provided in Q2.

• A new CEO took over. Aer 35 years at the company, he knows the business well and would eﬀectively mark a continuation of the strategy set by his predecessor.

• A deal in Aerostructure is no longer realistic this summer.

• However, the group is confident in delivering on its guidance.

• The Middle East is 8% of revenues and growing. Leonardo expects strong demand to come from the region.

• The GCAP is diﬀicult, given the ongoing funding constraints. Yet, it received its first international order. So the program is progressing even if not fully funded.

• The 22.8% stake in Hensoldt is currently looked at as an industrial partner. However, as it is clear that there is no chance for Leonardo of getting control, the group is discussing how to leverage the stake industrially at the moment, but could also eventually decide to realise the value of its stake through a financial sale if no synergies can be found

Hensoldt

• Hensoldt showcased its TRML 4D and Spexer radars, which are in high demand and currently expanding production with a view to doubling capacity from 15 in 2025, estimated at 20 in 2026, to 30 TRML 4D radars in 2027E.

• Although the group's revenues and order intakes are dominated by Germany and other NATO countries (10 Skyshield countries have opted for TRML 4D radars), the group would expect Middle East demand (a low single-digit percentage of group revenues) to double over time.

• Growth should be strong this year, while the book-to-bill of 1.5-2x highlights the strength of the current order momentum, but also the lumpiness necessitating quite a range of absolute outcomes (EUR3.8-5bn order). The group expects to receive EUR 1bn orders for new Pegasus surveillance aircra or Luwes jamming systems, whose exact timing remains uncertain.

• The end of the FCAS is not a concern to Hensoldt, which expects an alternative to the programme. Meanwhile, the group would expect to reallocate a third of the 150 engineers working on the project to other R&D priorities. Paid for R&D accounted for 15% of group revenues last year.

• The stock has derated on macro considerations and ceasefire concerns, but ramping up production to meet a fast-growing backlog of multi-domain sensors and optronics solutions secures the strong 15-20% top line growth outlook earmarked at the CMD last year.

Safran

• We met the Safran IR team at their headquarters aer our visit to Eurosatory.

• The company presented last week its Defence ambitions in Montlucon. We encourage our readers to refer to our site visit note for more details on the very strong prospects oﬀered by Defence for Safran and the confidence we have in the group's ability to continue to surprise in its Propulsion Civil aermarket business, making the stock still one of our highest conviction ideas in the aerospace & defence sector.

• The group's defence portfolio contributed c.20% of revenues in 2025, of which half was attributable to Propulsion (or EUR3.1bn last year) and the rest to Equipment & Defence (or EUR 3.2bn last year).

• In the propulsion, some 10% of revenues stem from Military Engines, notably the M88 engine deliveries and aermarket revenues, whose delivery rates are set to double by 2029. This does not include the possibility of new Rafale orders; the group is awaiting the signature of the 114 Rafale jet Indian contract (FCF guidance not including such jumbo deals). Meanwhile, Safran Propulsion is benefiting from the booming missile demand (EUR0.4bn revenues), which already tripled between 22-25E but is on course to grow by 7x by 2028. Safran is on board 10 missile platforms (with MBDA, Kongsberg and Saab in particular) and is currently in discussion with US missile makers. Another 5% of the group's Propulsion revenues is directed at military Helicopters, whose business is heavily split between aermarket and new turbine deliveries. Margin-wise, the group is not commenting on the contribution by the sub-segment other than the fact that the growth in military propulsion is not expected to be dilutive to the propulsion margins.

• The group's defence segment in Equipment & Defence is enjoying very strong demand for its Hammer guiding kits, recently illustrated by a key ballistic missile win. Here, the group has seen demand grow 5-6 fold over the last three years with continued very strong momentum, hence investments to triple production. Order intakes grew by + 60% last year, pointing at least high teens growth for Safran Defence Electronics Defence segment by the end of the decade, from 17% CAGR reported between 22- 25E. 80% of the order book is international and platform agnostic, while the group is capable of covering the entire spectrum from highly sophisticated programs to more aﬀordable mass customers. In Equipment & Defence, the outperformance of defence is set to be margin accretive and a key reason why management is confident it can increase margin to mid-teens.

• Outside defence, the equity story remains dominated by the group's core Civil Propulsion business, which accounts for 80% of its Propulsion business, of which 68% is narrow-body engines (CFM56 and LEAP), and 12% comes from wide-body. Growth in Civil Aermarket Propulsion was very strong in Q1, including 29% for Spares and 40% for Services. Growth in Spares was not driven by the growth of shop visits, although a growing portion of LEAP shop visits are done by third-party MRO (up from 10% to 15% of total, on 30% shop visit growth expected this year, suggesting a doubling of LEAP third-party spares demand). That said, the bulk of spares growth is explained by CFM56, whose shop visit growth is now flat and pricing gains amount to 5-7%, thereby highlighting the importance of workscope eﬀects, which are growing faster in 26E than in 25E, a phenomenon that could prevail until the end of the decade in line with the ageing fleet and the growing number of 2nd shop visits that tend to consume 60% more parts than the first ones (albeit the average varying given the fact that some spare part replacements are mandatory while others are at the discretion of the airlines). Another for the 3rd shop visits that typically compete on price with the second material, they are also set to contribute more, as there is no stock of the second spare part and as power generation players now buy a growing number of retired engines. Retirement rates of CFM56 have been below the planned 2% this year (at c.1-1.5%) and could continue to be below the 3-4% expected in the coming years, as airlines have so far not changed their behaviour, probably on the assumption that the oil shock would be temporary. Safran has not seen slot cancellation or deferrals as companies do not want to be caught oﬀ guard should a reopening of the Hormuz Strait opens soon (likely if a deal is signed this week end in our view and as suggested by the sharp fall in oil prices) pointing to another strong quarter in Q2 and very strong confidence in delivering low teen CAGR in revenues and EBIT for Propulsion between 25-28E (at 22-24% margin), driven by CFM56 and LEAP . If growth oﬀers visibility on the back of planned shop visits and pricing power, the margin band is mostly a reflection of mix question marks and the likely normalisation of spare engine ratios in the LEAP engine delivery mix (expected to be 10-12%). There is upside to margin, though, as tariﬀs paid last year may be refunded this year, although this may simply compensate other inflationary eﬀects.

• Outside the sensitivity of airline traﬀic and balance sheet to the macro, Safran USD hedging stands at 1.13 until 2028E, such that the risks to group assumptions appear limited to the French corporate tax surcharge (assumed at EUR 475m this year and not recurring next year), although cash flow assumptions remain prudent as they do not assume the possibility for large order advance payments in defence.

• Divestments from Cabin are gathering pace, as the group is expecting stronger prices in Seats to boost revenues and profit margins in the coming year and beyond. Cabin has more limited upside and is set to rebound to HSD margin, hence the decision to exit. Divestment is complicated by AIFR's keenness to secure supply and therefore prefers industrial solutions.

How to profit:

Related but stateside:

Professional subscribers can read about drones, humanoids, and modern war tech reshaping battlefields at our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 06:15

Sweden Passes Law To Revoke Residence Permits From Migrants Who Fail 'Good-Behavior' Test

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 09:30:00 +0000

Sweden Passes Law To Revoke Residence Permits From Migrants Who Fail 'Good-Behavior' Test

Via Remix News,

Sweden has passed a new migration law that will allow residence permits to be refused or revoked if foreign nationals are deemed not to have lived in an orderly manner, marking another major tightening of the country’s immigration system.

The Swedish Parliament adopted the government’s amendments to existing immigration laws on Monday by 302 votes to 44, with the Left Party and the Green Party voting against the measure. The changes will mainly come into force next month.

Under the new rules, a foreign national’s conduct will carry greater weight when authorities decide whether to grant, extend, or revoke a residence permit. The law does not set out an exhaustive list of behaviors that will be treated as unacceptable, leaving the Migration Agency to assess cases individually. It means that an immigrant who may not hold a criminal record but has acted in a disorderly manner in other ways could be told to leave.

Decisions can be appealed to a migration court.

Government representatives and investigators have cited several examples of conduct that may count against an applicant, including failing to follow Swedish laws and regulations, ignoring decisions by public authorities, systematically avoiding debts or fines, working illegally, failing to pay taxes, criminality, and links to extremist organizations.

Migration Minister Johan Forssell defended the proposal when it was presented in March, saying Sweden should demand more from those seeking to remain in the country.

“Anyone who doesn’t make the effort to do the right thing shouldn’t be able to count on staying,” Forssell said.

The measure forms part of a broader shift in Swedish migration policy under the current government, which has moved to make residence, citizenship and asylum rules more restrictive.

Earlier this month, Parliament also approved the removal of permanent residence permits for several asylum-related categories, including people granted protection, long-term residents in Sweden, and their family members.

Sverigedemokraterna levererar på våra vallöften! I dag har riksdagen röstat ja till dubbla straff för gängkriminella, ett återinfört tjänstemannaansvar och vandelskrav för uppehållstillstånd. 🇸🇪 pic.twitter.com/MNxX5n4Tf9
— Sverigedemokraterna (@sdriks) June 15, 2026

Hailing the move, the right-wing Sweden Democrats wrote on X, “The Sweden Democrats are delivering on our election promises! Today, the Swedish parliament voted yes to double penalties for gang criminals, the reintroduction of official liability, and character requirements for residence permits.”

While the party is not in government, it props up the current administration on the proviso that restrictive immigration reforms continue to be implemented.

Earlier this year, Sweden also passed a strengthened return package giving police and migration authorities more tools to enforce deportation decisions. Several public authorities will be required to share information with police if they suspect a foreign national has no right to remain in the country. The package also expands the use of fingerprints, photographs, and checks of mobile phones in migration cases.

Other recent changes include stricter work-permit rules, including a salary threshold of at least 90 percent of the Swedish median salary for most applicants, and tougher citizenship rules.

The ordinary residence requirement for citizenship recently rose from five to eight years, alongside tougher requirements on self-sufficiency, conduct and knowledge of the Swedish language and society.

The government also increased voluntary repatriation grants at the start of the year, allowing eligible adults with protection-related residence permits to receive up to 350,000 Swedish kronor if they return permanently to their country of origin.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 05:30

Suckers? 44% Of EU Citizens Feel Well-Protected In The Digital World

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:45:00 +0000

Suckers? 44% Of EU Citizens Feel Well-Protected In The Digital World

While the European Union has taken a global lead in regulating the digital economy, survey data paints a mixed picture of the effectiveness of those efforts.

As Statista's Felix Richter details below, according to a recent Eurobarometer survey, 83 percent of EU citizens consider it important for authorities to ensure that AI and digital technologies respect European rights and values, suggesting broad public support for a strong regulatory framework.

You will find more infographics at Statista

At the same time, only 44 percent say they feel well protected by the EU in the digital world.

The results point to a gap between the bloc’s regulatory ambitions and how secure citizens actually feel online.

In other words, while there is broad backing for stricter rules, many Europeans remain unconvinced that existing measures are fully effective in practice.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 04:45

Hegseth Orders Review Of US Force Posture In Europe, Warns NATO Laggards Of Consequences

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 08:00:00 +0000

Hegseth Orders Review Of US Force Posture In Europe, Warns NATO Laggards Of Consequences

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth on June 18 announced a six-month review of U.S. force posture and basing in Europe, warning that NATO allies failing to meet defense spending commitments could face consequences as Washington pushes the alliance toward what he called a new era of burden-sharing.

Speaking at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, Hegseth said the review would examine America’s military footprint in Europe and help ensure that European allies assume primary responsibility for the continent’s conventional defense.

“I’m announcing today a six-month Department of War review that will examine America’s force posture and basing in Europe,” Hegseth said.

The review comes as the Trump administration is pushing NATO members to increase defense spending and take over capabilities long provided by the United States.

Earlier this month, NATO officials disclosed that the United States would no longer assign certain capabilities—including an aircraft carrier strike group, support ships, aerial refueling aircraft, and dozens of combat aircraft—to NATO crisis-response plans.

The Trump administration has said that the United States must preserve greater military flexibility as it prepares for the possibility of simultaneous conflicts, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

Hegseth described the U.S. force posture review as part of a broader transformation of the alliance into “NATO 3.0,” a return to what he characterized as NATO’s original mission as a hard-edged military alliance focused on deterrence and warfighting.

“It will be designed to ensure that NATO is moving fast and irreversibly toward Europe leading, stepping up to take primary responsibility for the defense of Europe, stepping up to ensure our forces are postured for America’s global needs,” Hegseth said.

Although Hegseth did not question the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5 collective defense clause, he indicated that allies failing to meet spending targets could see reductions in U.S. contributions.

“Going forward, our annual NATO dues will be contingent on other countries meeting their defense spending targets,” he said. ”Where other allies do not spend with urgency, our dues contributions will go down. ... It’s a review that some countries will fail and others will pass with flying colors.”

NATO 3.0

Hegseth sharply criticized what he described as decades of underinvestment by European allies.

“For too long, NATO has been a paper tiger and a one-way street,” he said. “No more.”

He argued that after the Cold War, NATO drifted away from its core military mission and toward issues unrelated to deterrence and defense. He described an era in which the alliance had lost its way by focusing on “gender equity and climate change and defense austerity.”

Instead, he said, the alliance must return to being “a real military alliance that’s focused on hard power and real deterrence.”

Hegseth said European allies had made progress in boosting military spending, citing NATO’s new benchmark of spending 5 percent of gross domestic product on defense and related investments.

He also highlighted planned increases in U.S. defense spending, saying that U.S. President Donald Trump had committed to defense budgets exceeding $1 trillion in 2026 and $1.5 trillion in 2027.

“We will lead and exceed our own NATO spending standards,” Hegseth said.

US Contributions Already Cut

The review comes weeks after Washington informed allies that it would reduce certain contributions to NATO’s force model, a planning framework that assigns military capabilities to respond to crises and defend alliance territory.

“In May, the Department of War told allies that we’re reducing our contributions to the NATO force model,” Hegseth said, noting that some allies had already begun stepping in to fill the gaps.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte holds a news conference ahead of a defense ministers' meeting at the alliance's headquarters in Brussels on June 17, 2026. Yves Herman/Reuters

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte confirmed on June 18 that those reductions have already taken effect.

“The question yesterday came up: Is this immediate or not?” Rutte told reporters before the ministerial meeting. “It is immediate.”

Rutte clarified that the changes relate to NATO planning assumptions rather than actual wartime commitments.

“Why I’m a little bit reluctant to say this is because it is a planning tool,” he said. “So what would happen in reality? If war would break out ... all allies, including the U.S., will max out what they can do to make sure we can fight the war.”

Despite the changes to force planning, NATO officials said that the alliance’s nuclear deterrence posture remains intact.

In a statement following a June 18 meeting of NATO’s nuclear planning group, allies reaffirmed that they maintain a “safe, secure, effective, and credible nuclear posture to preserve peace, prevent coercion and deter aggression.”

They described the alliance’s strategic nuclear forces as the “supreme guarantee of Allied security” that underpins NATO’s deterrence architecture.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 04:00

Is Trump Preparing To "Escalate To De-Escalate" With Russia?

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 03:25:00 +0000

Is Trump Preparing To "Escalate To De-Escalate" With Russia?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

He feels personally insulted by Putin rejecting his proposal to freeze the conflict in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership and also, whether one agrees with him or not, senses weakness after the US built a “cordon sanitaire” around Russia over the past year.

Trump signed the “G7 leaders’ statement on geopolitical issues” agreeing “to increase the delivery of air defence capacities, additional systems and interceptors, and long-range capabilities. We are also ready to consider extending to Ukraine the benefit of licenses to allow for an increase in Ukraine’s military production…we will strengthen our sanctions, including those on the oil and gas sectors.” This amounts to him preparing to “escalate to de-escalate” with Russia, the reason for which will now be explained.

From Trump’s perspective, which is an explanation but not an excuse in case anyone misinterprets the following, Putin wasted his time these nearly 18 months by talking about peace but rejecting Trump’s proposal to freeze the conflict in exchange for a resource-centric strategic partnership.

Likewise, from Putin’s perspective, Trump reneged on the reported “Spirit of Anchorage” by declining to coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass in exchange for Putin then declaring a full ceasefire.

Putin accordingly carried on with his special operation, albeit while still eschewing any escalation thereof due to his belief (no matter how outdated some of his supporters think that it’s since become) that Russians and Ukrainians are brothers, which Trump considered to be an insult.

It thus wasn’t the Europeans or Ukrainians who convinced him to renege on the reported “Spirit of Anchorage”, but his ego after he felt offended that Putin rejected his abovementioned proposal to his face in Anchorage.

In retrospect, Trump already had his eyes on Venezuela and Iran once again too, which is why he held off on “escalating to de-escalate” till both of those were wrapped up.

Meanwhile, he implemented his Neo-Reagan Doctrine of rolling back Russian influence worldwide with a focus on Russia’s entire southern periphery in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, which completed Russia’s strategic encirclement. A “cordon sanitaire” has now been established around the entire country.

This US-organized geostrategic construct was built in the Arctic-Baltic through UK-led efforts, Central Europe through Polish-led efforts, along its entire southern periphery through Turkish-led efforts, and Northeast Asia through Japanese-led efforts. Trump was therefore almost certainly advised by the deep state that now is the perfect moment to intensify pressure on Russia so as to coerce it into unilateral concessions for ending the Ukrainian Conflict and consequently alleviating some of this pressure.

Whether or not Putin will comply remains a matter of debate, but the aforesaid uncertainty doesn’t mean that Trump wasn’t convinced that now is the perfect time to “escalate to de-escalate” upon sensing what he truly believes to be weakness.

The risk is that Putin finally abandons his belief in the brotherhood of Russians and Ukrainians to reciprocally escalate, possibly even going as far as limited conventional strikes against NATO members to call what he might believe is the big bluff about Article 5.

Unless Russia either capitulates to the US’ demands or there’s a diplomatic breakthrough whereby a balance of interests is reached through a series of mutual compromises, the first of which is improbable while the latter is possible even if unlikely, then a major escalation in NATO-Russian tensions is expected.

Trump ultimately settled for less than he demanded from Iran despite earlier threatening to destroy its civilization if it didn’t unconditionally surrender so he might once again “chicken out” and cut a deal.

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

The Cost Of Helium-3: Earth Sources Vs The Moon

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 03:00:00 +0000

The Cost Of Helium-3: Earth Sources Vs The Moon

When it comes to Helium-3, the biggest cost divide is between Earth and the Moon. Potential sources range from tritium decay and terrestrial helium wells on Earth to lunar regolith on the Moon. Today, Earth-based sources remain far easier and cheaper to access.

This graphic, created by Visual Capitalist's Cody Good in partnership with Pulsar Helium, compares major potential sources of Helium-3 by cost, scalability, and accessibility. It’s part three of four in the Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity series, delivering key He-3 insights for investors tracking deep tech, critical minerals, and advanced computing.

The Extraction Cost of Helium-3

Looking at cost alone, Earth-based sources currently have a major advantage over Moon-based He-3.

Source: Pulsar Helium; CRS R41419 (Shea & Morgan, 2010); Niechciał et al., Energies (2020); Thunder Said Energy; NASA OIG; CLPS contract data; USGS Keszthelyi et al. (2023); Smith‑Vaniz et al. (2026); Interlune..

Values reflect order‑of‑magnitude estimates from market pricing (tritium), thermodynamic separation floors (Pulsar), and CLPS‑based transport floors (lunar), using simplified assumptions for grade, throughput, and infrastructure.

Tritium decay is an existing Earth-based source, tied to nuclear weapons stockpiles. The tritium used in warheads decays into He-3 and is recovered during processing; however, supply is limited by nuclear stockpiles and government control.

Lunar regolith refers to the Moon’s surface material, where He-3 is believed to have accumulated from solar wind particles over time. Extracting He-3 would involve mining the Moon’s surface material, processing it to release gases, separating the He-3, and then returning it to Earth.

Pulsar sits between these two extremes by accessing Earth-based helium deposits using similar drilling technology as used for natural gas wells. The cost estimate is based only on the theoretical energy needed to separate He-3 from a gas stream, and excludes capex, labour, and other operating costs.

Comparing Source Scalability

Cost is only one part of the He-3 supply story. Each source also has a very different path to scale.

Tritium Decay: Low scalability, because supply is capped by nuclear stockpiles.
Pulsar Helium: Moderate scalability, with the potential to scale through terrestrial wells.
Lunar Regolith: High theoretical scalability, based on a large inferred resource on the Moon.

For tritium, without government subsidies, the price grows significantly further reducing scalability and accessibility.

How Easy is Helium-3 to Access?

Accessibility is the other major difference between Earth and lunar sources.

Tritium Decay: Moderate accessibility through existing infrastructure, but largely government-controlled.
Pulsar Helium: Moderate accessibility, with earth-based sourcing.
Lunar Regolith: Very low accessibility, with no current mining or return logistics.

Lunar He-3 may become more competitive over time, but for now, the only sources available are Earth-based.

Helium 3: From Theory to Opportunity

The rising demand for He-3 is putting new pressure on supply. Though lunar mining may one day become part of the long-term story, the near-term opportunity is much closer to home.

For investors, the key question is not just how much He-3 exists, but how realistically it can be produced and delivered. Scalability and accessibility shape how quickly a resource can move from concept to market.

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

Pentagon Restores Pacific Command Name, Reversing 2018 'Indo-Pacific' Rebrand

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 02:35:00 +0000

Pentagon Restores Pacific Command Name, Reversing 2018 'Indo-Pacific' Rebrand

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Pentagon said on June 16 that it was restoring the name U.S. Pacific Command, reversing a 2018 decision that rebranded the command as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to reflect the growing strategic importance of India and the Indian Ocean in U.S. defense policy.

The Department of War said in a statement that the command, known as U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) since 2018, would officially revert to its previous designation, U.S. Pacific Command, or USPACOM, a name it carried for more than seven decades before the change.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted the move on social media, writing, “U.S. Pacific Command...is back.”

The Pentagon said the decision was intended to restore the command’s historical identity and military heritage rather than to signal any change in mission, geographic scope, or strategic priorities.

“Restoring the legacy USPACOM designation honors the command’s deep historical roots, fostering a sense of pride and collective spirit among all who serve in the Pacific,” the department said in a statement.

The Pentagon further clarified that the command’s area of responsibility, stretching from the waters off the U.S. West Coast to the western border of India, remains unchanged, as does its commitment to maintaining a “free and open theater alongside regional allies and partners.”

The move restores the name under which the command operated from its establishment in 1947 until May 2018.

The Pentagon did not provide a detailed explanation for the decision beyond citing the command’s historical legacy.

The name change quickly drew scrutiny in India.

Nirupama Rao, India’s former foreign secretary and ambassador to Washington, said in a post on X that the key question raised by the decision was whether the United States still viewed India as a “co-architect of regional order or simply as one useful actor among many in advancing American objectives.”

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) is the largest of the Department of War’s six geographic joint combatant commands, with an area of operation that stretches from its Pearl Harbor headquarters west across two oceans to the Arabian Sea. Department of War/Epoch Times Screenshot

Rao said the renaming came amid a series of recent developments, such as “cooler optics” at the G7 summit in France and the deaths of three Indian sailors in a U.S. strike on an oil tanker near the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. military said the vessel had violated its blockade on Iranian ports.

Taken together, these and other developments could suggest a shift toward a more transactional phase in U.S.–India relations, she suggested.

“None of these individually proves a strategic rupture,” Rao wrote. “But collectively they suggest that the exuberant phase of India–US relations may be ending. The relationship is becoming more normal, more transactional, and perhaps more difficult.”

Shashi Tharoor, an Indian member of Parliament and former minister of state, questioned whether the move was a “nail in the coffin” for the Quad, the four-country grouping made up of Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

The Pentagon has given no indication that the change reflects any downgrading of ties with India.

U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth speaks at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore on May 30, 2026. Edgar Su/Reuters

In remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore last month, Hegseth described India as “a critical anchor to hold the line” and praised the country’s military modernization efforts and growing defense-industrial cooperation with the United States.

“We’ve also committed to pursuing co-production with India to advance capabilities like Javelin anti-tank guided munitions,” Hegseth said, describing the moves as among a number of “real tangible steps to improve the collective readiness” of U.S. forces.

While the practical implications of the name change seem limited, the decision reverses what was widely seen as a visible symbolic shift in U.S. regional strategy rather than a mere bureaucratic adjustment when the 2018 switch was made.

Then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced the change during a command transition ceremony in Hawaii, saying it reflected the “increasing connectivity” between the Indian and Pacific oceans and underscored Washington’s commitment to the broader Indo-Pacific region.

Former U.S. Secretary of Defense General Jim Mattis speaks at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York on Sept. 9, 2019. Gary He/Reuters

At the time, Mattis described the Indo-Pacific as a region stretching “from Hollywood to Bollywood” and highlighted the growing importance of the Indian Ocean to U.S. strategic planning.

Describing the 2018 National Defense Strategy as a “roadmap for the American military,” Mattis said at the time that the strategy “acknowledges the Pacific challenges and signals America’s resolve and lasting commitment to the Indo-Pacific.”

The Trump administration’s 2026 National Defense Strategy repeatedly refers to the “Indo-Pacific” and identifies deterring China in the region as one of the military’s primary objectives. The document describes the Indo-Pacific as the world’s largest and most dynamic economic area and calls for maintaining a favorable balance of power there.

Buildings and structures sit on an artificial island built by China in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea on Oct. 25, 2022. Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

“We will deter China in the Indo-Pacific through strength, not confrontation,” Hegseth wrote in the document, which further states that the U.S. military would act to support “strategic stability” with Beijing while focusing on “deconfliction and de-escalation.”

“But we will also be clear-eyed and realistic about the speed, scale, and quality of China’s historic military buildup,” the 2026 strategy states. “Our goal in doing so is not to dominate China; nor is it to strangle or humiliate them. Rather, our goal is simple: To prevent anyone, including China, from being able to dominate us or our allies.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 22:35

Which States Brew The Most Craft Beer?

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 02:10:00 +0000

Which States Brew The Most Craft Beer?

American craft brewers produced roughly 22 million barrels of beer in 2025, the equivalent of more than 7 billion 12-ounce cans. That output is concentrated in a few key states.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows the barrels of craft beer produced in every U.S. state in 2025, based on data from the Brewers Association.

Figures reflect the association’s June 2026 revision and cover all 50 states plus Washington, D.C.

To count as craft, a brewery must produce no more than 6 million barrels per year and be less than 25% owned by a large alcohol company. One barrel equals 31 gallons, or roughly 330 twelve-ounce cans.

California Brews Nearly One in Every Six U.S. Craft Beers

California tops the nation with 3.45 million barrels of craft beer brewed in 2025. The state’s 939 craft breweries are also the most in the country, well ahead of second-place Pennsylvania’s 538.

Pennsylvania ranks second in volume at 2.0 million barrels, with much of that total coming from Yuengling, America’s oldest operating brewery, founded in 1829, and its largest craft brewer by volume.

The data table below shows each state’s total production of craft beer in 2025 in barrels:

Rank	State	Barrels of Craft Beer Produced (2025)
1	California	3,450,329
2	Pennsylvania	2,004,382
3	Texas	1,422,277
4	Ohio	1,298,489
5	New York	1,281,220
6	Florida	1,153,556
7	Oregon	1,109,391
8	Colorado	854,707
9	Massachusetts	812,974
10	North Carolina	772,964
11	Wisconsin	609,271
12	Georgia	601,462
13	Washington	533,296
14	Minnesota	466,625
15	Connecticut	450,232
16	Illinois	409,589
17	Vermont	357,138
18	Virginia	342,075
19	Maine	338,405
20	Missouri	284,297
21	Michigan	267,660
22	Arizona	229,212
23	Indiana	222,088
24	Montana	216,992
25	Delaware	186,803
26	Hawaii	179,149
27	Maryland	176,644
28	Tennessee	174,083
29	New Jersey	161,094
30	Louisiana	155,643
31	Iowa	134,108
32	Alaska	133,395
33	New Mexico	132,852
34	South Carolina	125,086
35	Kentucky	121,865
36	Utah	102,241
37	New Hampshire	88,320
38	Alabama	80,869
39	Arkansas	71,520
40	Oklahoma	69,318
41	Idaho	64,945
42	Wyoming	63,130
43	Rhode Island	59,768
44	Nevada	54,683
45	Nebraska	46,358
46	Kansas	35,059
47	District of Columbia	30,036
48	West Virginia	21,562
49	South Dakota	21,183
50	North Dakota	19,051
51	Mississippi	18,262

In total, seven states: California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New York, Florida, and Oregon, each brewed more than 1 million barrels in 2025. Together, they accounted for 53% of all U.S. craft beer production.

At the other end of the list, Mississippi brewed 18,262 barrels of craft beer in 2025, the least of any state.

Big States’ Beer Brewing and What Defines Craft

Population explains much of the order, as the four most populous states, California, Texas, Florida, and New York, all rank in the top six, but not all of it. Ohio’s 1.3 million barrels edge out far larger New York and Florida, while Illinois, the sixth-most populous state, ranks just 16th at 409,589 barrels.

Smaller states punch above their weight, too: Vermont, the second-smallest state by population, brewed 357,138 barrels in 2025, out-brewing far larger Virginia and Michigan, with Maine close behind at 338,405. Demand varies just as much as supply, with Americans’ alcohol spending per capita differing widely from state to state.

Because the Brewers Association’s definition hinges on independent ownership, state totals can shift when breweries change hands. Colorado’s New Belgium Brewing, in 2019, and Michigan’s Bell’s Brewery, in 2021, were both acquired by Lion, a subsidiary of Japan’s Kirin. This moved their volumes out of the craft column and dented both states’ totals.

That helps explain why Michigan’s 410 craft breweries produced just 268,660 barrels in 2025, ranking the state 21st by volume.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Which States Have the Most Breweries Per Person? on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 22:10

Washington's Business Exodus

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 01:45:00 +0000

Washington's Business Exodus

Authored by Mark Harmsworth via The Washington Policy Center,

Washington state’s business climate continues to deteriorate under the weight of record tax increases and burdensome regulations.

A spring 2026 survey by the Association of Washington Business reveals alarming trends.

Nearly one in four employers (24 percent) are now actively considering relocating their businesses out of state, up sharply from 17 percent in the previous quarter and nearly triple the level from winter 2025.

Another 55 percent of business leaders are considering moving their personal residences elsewhere, citing the state’s escalating tax burden as the top challenge. This flight is no surprise. Washington’s business tax climate has plummeted from sixth-best in the nation in 2014 to near the bottom today, with the state now ranking among the worst for small-business survival.

Major tax hikes enacted in 2025 are now hitting businesses hard. Starting in late 2025 and accelerating into 2026, the state increased business & occupation tax rates for service businesses and introduced new surcharges. Large companies face a 0.5 percent surcharge on taxable income of more than $250 million, while advanced computing firms saw their surcharge jump dramatically. These changes, part of the largest tax increase in state history, are projected to reduce state gross domestic product growth by up to 0.5 percent in 2026 (nearly $4.5 billion) and cut wages by billions of dollars more.

Office vacancy rates reflect the pain. Although Seattle’s downtown vacancy rate remains among the nation’s highest (hovering between 28 percent and more than 35 percent in reports from the first quarter of 2026), the broader Puget Sound region and state face similar pressures from remote work shifts and corporate relocations. Companies such as Starbucks are shifting hundreds of jobs to lower-tax states such as Tennessee. Other firms have issued worker adjustment and retraining notification notices and moved operations to Idaho, Utah, and beyond.

High-profile exits and stalled expansions are mounting. Entrepreneurs report that Washington’s combination of high taxes, regulatory red tape, and hostile policies makes growth nearly impossible.

The bottom line is that as the high earners and companies leave the state, the revenue from increased taxes, including the new income tax, will dry up and politicians in Olympia will be left scrambling for new sources of tax revenue.

The $1 million threshold on the income tax will fall in the blink of an eye.

Politicians have to restore small-business owners’ confidence in the regulatory environment and keep the promises they are making.

Just three months after signing the income tax into law, lauding it as the way forward for the state, Gov. Bob Ferguson is now claiming that he will veto any change to the exemption threshold in order to garner support to keep the legislation in place.

History indicates that Ferguson’s claim might be a little “flexible,” and that’s the problem. There is no predictability for business owners.

Until leaders recognize that businesses vote with their feet, and their payrolls, the state’s economic outlook will remain clouded.

Washington can reverse course. Lowering the tax burden, simplifying regulations, and prioritizing a pro-growth environment would stem the exodus and restore prosperity.

The data are clear. Washington is losing the competition. It’s time to compete again.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 21:45

Amazon Plans $10B Missouri Data Center Campus

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 01:20:00 +0000

Amazon Plans $10B Missouri Data Center Campus

By Sebastian Obando of ConstructionDive

Amazon will invest $10 billion to build a data center campus in Montgomery County, Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe announced Monday. In addition to facility construction, the development includes roads and water infrastructure improvements, such as a new bridge over theNorfolk Southern Railway and a water system Amazon plans to transfer to the local utility after construction, according to the tech giant.

The announcement adds yet another multibillion-dollar data center project to the construction pipeline, a sign the data center construction boom has room to run.

Representational image of an Amazon data center construction site | Image courtesy: Amazon

The $10 billion Amazon investment highlights the growing role of hyperscale developers in overall U.S. construction activity.

Once complete, the campus will support cloud computing infrastructure and generate hundreds of millions in property tax revenue for Montgomery County over the next 25 years, according to the release. Amazon also worked with Ameren Missouri, the local utility company, to ensure the project bears the full cost of connecting to the electric grid, the tech giant said.

The commitment also emphasizes how these builds often carry supplementary community projects. For example, Amazon plans over $7 million in community contributions as part of its investment, according to the company. That includes $3 million toward public safety infrastructure, as well as several roadway improvements and a new bridge.

“Projects like this create lasting benefits for local communities by supporting critical infrastructure improvements, generating tax revenue for schools and public services, and strengthening the foundation for future economic growth,” said Kehoe in the release.

In addition to the infrastructure upgrades in the area, Amazon will sponsor the community’s Montgomery County Fair. The company will commit over $1 million to build a new large-scale community gathering space at the fairgrounds, according to the governor’s release.

Amazon will also invest more than $3 million in community programs focused on STEM education, skills development, sustainability and support for local nonprofit organizations, the announcement said.

“Amazon’s announcement in Montgomery County is a testament to what can be accomplished through strong collaboration and a shared commitment to growth,” said Michelle Hataway, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development, in the release. “This project will help strengthen the region’s capacity for future development while reinforcing Missouri’s position as a destination for innovation and investment.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 21:20

US Security Chief Says One Suspected Terrorist Is Arrested At Canadian Border 'Almost Weekly'

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:55:00 +0000

US Security Chief Says One Suspected Terrorist Is Arrested At Canadian Border 'Almost Weekly'

Authored by Paul Rowan Brian via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin says American authorities apprehend a suspected or wanted terrorist at the Canada-U.S. border "almost weekly," while warning that "fracturing" relations between the two countries could leave both more vulnerable to criminal organizations, fentanyl traffickers, and other threats.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin testifies before the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security in Washington on June 3, 2026. AP Photo/Cliff Owen

Mullin made the remarks June 17 during a fireside conversation with Canada's Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. He added that the United States is concerned that many criminal organizations whose activity has been reduced due to enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border are moving operations to the northern border.

"We arrest a terrorist - one either on the watch list or wanted terrorist - on our northern border almost weekly," Mullin said. "Some of the fracturing we have right now between the countries, we've got to figure it out."

Mullin was sworn in as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on March 24, succeeding Kristi Noem after she was reposted as the special envoy for the Shield of the Americas by U.S. President Donald Trump.

'Solid Foundation'

Mullin said improving Canada-U.S. relations and building a "solid foundation" is vital to ensuring that criminals don't take advantage of a U.S.-Canada rupture in relations.

"We've got to move past our differences so we can build that solid foundation, because we have criminals, we have cartels, we have organized crime that's taken advantage of it," he added.

While Mullin warned that criminal organizations along with terror suspects and illegal immigrants are increasingly targeting the U.S. northern border, Anandasangaree said Canada has already made considerable progress in tightening border security. Illegal migration from Canada into the United States has declined by 99 percent since Ottawa introduced a plan to boost border security in December 2024, the minister stated.

"The border plan that we introduced in 2024 December, which has been implemented now over the last 18 months, is bearing fruit," he said.

Anandasangaree also highlighted close collaboration between Canadian and American authorities.

"The cooperation amongst law enforcement, whether it's DHS and Canada Border Services, or the operations centre where we're embedded in Detroit, it's critically important and we're seeing that bearing fruit for security," he said.

Concern About Cartels Moving North: Mullin

Mullin said that in addition to terrorist-related threats and illegal immigration, the U.S. government is highly concerned about the flow of fentanyl and cartel activity through its northern border.

"Over the last year we've apprehended enough fentanyl that would kill 17 million Americans on our northern border," he said.

Mullin said he believes an uptick in organized crime activity at the Canada-U.S. border is due to stricter enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border and "pressure we're putting on the cartels" that is causing them to seek out "other areas."

"We see the amount of increase of criminal activity that's happening. And we see the same techniques that were on the southern border that are moving to the northern border," Mullin said.

He said that cooperation between the United States and Canada is "vitally important" and pointed to intelligence-sharing between the two nations as the top priority.

"Our biggest priority now is to have great partnerships with our friends to the North to be able to actively stop [illegal activity] before it grows to the point that it is in Mexico," he said, adding "the biggest issue that we've really got to work on is sharing the intel and then acting on it in a timely manner."

Canada-US Tensions

At one point, Mullin compared the Canada-U.S. relationship to marriage, saying that current tensions are similar to when he and his wife get into an argument.

"It's kind of like my wife and I when she gets really mad at me, and I'm well deserved to get mad at, sometimes I just have to stop and say, 'love you,'" he said.

"Arguing doesn't help; it only allows us to be more vulnerable for somebody else to sneak in and take my beautiful wife away from me."

Anandasangaree also emphasized close U.S.-Canada ties, saying they go beyond government cooperation to economic prosperity.

"We rely heavily on each other for both security, but as well as trade and commerce," he said, adding that much of the $900 billion of trade that takes place between the two countries annually is done "in an orderly manner that benefits both of our countries."

"What differences we have is negligible compared to what we have in common and the work that we're doing together," Anandasangaree added.

The minister also noted ongoing enhanced investments in border security in Canada including the hiring of 1,000 more RCMP and 1,000 more Canada Border Service Agency personnel announced in June last year, along with increased use of drones, helicopters, and surveillance technology at the border.

Anandasangaree also referenced close cooperation between the RCMP and FBI in working together to help lead to the arrest of accused transnational Canadian drug trafficker Ryan Wedding by Mexican authorities in January, in addition to a recent investigation by Peel Regional Police that led to 17 arrests in May.

Fentanyl

Mullin's figures for fentanyl lethality appear to be based on the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's calculation method for potential fentanyl deaths, which holds that 2 milligrams can be a potentially lethal dose for the average person.

Data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection showed very low fentanyl seizures at the Canada-U.S. border during the period from July 2024 through to February 2026, with Ottawa stating that "Canada is not a significant source of illegal fentanyl entering the US. Less than 1% of fentanyl seized in the US comes from Canada."

The office of Canada's Fentanyl Czar Kevin Brosseau cites U.S. statistics in noting that roughly 71,000 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the U.S.-Mexico border from 2022 to 2025, compared to approximately 134 pounds seized at the Canada-U.S. border or in its vicinity.

While Mullin emphasized the scale of fentanyl seizures at the northern border, Anandasangaree said the real source of the crisis is precursors manufactured overseas.

"The flow of fentanyl is not from the north to south or south to north; it is coming from overseas with precursors that enable dealers to manufacture and distribute in our countries," Anandasangaree said, though adding that he agreed "fentanyl and the scourge of fentanyl is impacting both of our countries."

Looking Ahead

In terms of the future of the Canada-U.S. relationship, both officials said they are confident that cooperation will continue despite political disagreements.

"If there are irritations, we need to just work through them. We will work through them," Anandasangaree said.

Mullin echoed this, saying that despite current tensions, the two countries remain indispensable partners.

"What we have to do is quit focusing on our differences and start thinking about what we have in common," Mullin said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 20:55

Infant Mortality Drops To All-Time Low In United States

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:30:00 +0000

Infant Mortality Drops To All-Time Low In United States

Infant mortality has dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in the United States, according to new preliminary data from the CDC - though it's still higher than in some other countries. According to the data, 5.36 infants per 1,000 live births died, down from 5.54 in 2024 and 5.63 in 2023. The results are based on death and birth certificates.

A baby in a hospital in a file photograph. Fred Dufour/AFP via Getty Images

Infants is defined as children who have not yet reached their first birthday.

According to researchers, the decline is statistically meaningful and translates into hundreds of fewer infant deaths per year.

"This is an encouraging data point, and we hope that this trend will continue," said Dr. Michael Warren, chief medical and health officer for the March of Dimes.

Warren said it was difficult to pinpoint what was driving the decline.

As the Epoch Times notes further, the overall numbers have been going down. U.S. infant deaths fell to about 19,350 last year, according to provisional CDC data that may rise a little as additional analysis is completed. The final tally is still expected to be down from about 20,050 in 2024 and about 20,160 in 2023, according to the agency.

Leading causes of infant mortality are birth defects, preterm birth and low birth weight, sudden infant death syndrome, unintentional injuries such as car accidents, and pregnancy complications, the CDC says.

The new data is not yet available by state. In 2024, infant mortality rates varied widely across states.

The CDC said this week in a report analyzing infant mortality data from 2024 that Mississippi had the highest infant mortality rate at 9.65 deaths per 1,000 births, and New Hampshire had the lowest, at just under 3 per 1,000.

"These differences are reflective of a variety of reasons related to access to care, community factors, and policies that improve health and outcomes," Warren said.

Not The Lowest

Worldwide, the infant mortality rate is 28 per 1,000 live births, according to the World Bank. The new U.S. rate is well below the average across countries.

A number of developed countries, though, boast lower rates, including Australia, Belgium, and Hungary.

From 2007 to 2022, infants were 78 percent more likely to die in the United States than in other high-income countries, researchers said in a 2025 paper.

Older children in the United States also faced higher odds of dying than kids in the other countries with high incomes.

In 2023, U.S. health officials began recommending two new measures aimed at protecting infants: a lab-made antibody shot for infants that helps the immune system fight off the respiratory syncytial virus, and an RSV vaccine for women between 32 weeks and 36 weeks of pregnancy.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 20:30

More Gunmakers Relocate To GOP States

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 00:05:00 +0000

More Gunmakers Relocate To GOP States

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

Firearms manufacturers Ruger and Rideout Arsenal are heading south, continuing a trend of firearms companies leaving Democrat-run states.

On June 10, Virginia-based Rideout Arsenal, a firearms designer and manufacturer, announced that it would invest $22 million to build a new manufacturing facility in Thomasville, Georgia. The investment would create 120 new jobs over the next several years, the company said.

"This relocation was not something we originally planned to pursue," Rideout founders Travis and Kelsey Rideout said in a statement.

"The reality is that recent anti-gun legislation in Virginia created a significant uncertainty for our company and ultimately forced us to look for a state where we could continue operating, investing, and growing with confidence."

These moves follow a trend in which firearms manufacturers such as Remington, Winchester, Stag Arms, Magpul, Troy Industries, Smith & Wesson, Dark Storm, and others have relocated over the past decade from left-leaning states such as New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Colorado to conservative states such as Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Tennessee.

"Firearm businesses are migrating to other states primarily because states like Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, Massachusetts, and others are becoming increasingly hostile to Second Amendment rights and the ability for these companies to produce firearms in their states," Mark Oliva, public affairs director for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told The Epoch Times.

"While Virginia was the latest example with Rideout Arsenal moving to Georgia, the move of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., to move their headquarters and expand production to Tennessee underscores the importance of firearm businesses finding greener pastures."

With Democrats in control of the legislature and the governorship, Virginia recently passed an array of new gun control laws, effective on July 1, including among other things a ban on the sale of various semi-automatic firearms, and certain large-capacity magazines, unserialized firearms, as well as new restrictions on carrying firearms in public places. Virginia also enacted laws to expand civil liability for gun manufacturers and dealers.

In welcoming Rideout to his state, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp stated that his state's "pro-business approach, skilled workforce, and enduring support for constitutional freedoms make us an ideal home for manufacturers like Rideout Arsenal."

In May, it became public that Ruger had relocated its head office from Fairfield, Connecticut, to Mayodan, North Carolina, at the start of the year. Although the company has not issued a public statement, it listed Mayodan as its location in its quarterly earnings report and has since confirmed the move.

Connecticut, once known as the "arsenal of democracy," had been home to several of America's largest firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Winchester, and now Sturm, Ruger & Co. Since the 2012 massacre of 26 first-grade children and teachers at Sandy Hook School in Newtown, the state has passed a series of laws to limit access to guns. In addition, the state has been the site of a number of lawsuits against gun makers, such as the $73 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by the parents of Sandy Hook children against Remington and threats of civil litigation against Ruger in November 2025.

Moving out of left-leaning states may lead to a more business-friendly environment, but it will do little to protect firearms manufacturers from lawsuits, Oliva said.

"The threat of litigation is still alive, since states like New Jersey and New York have pursued laws that allow for loosely designed 'public nuisance' lawsuits to skirt the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," Oliva said. "The move to these states is more about the ability to produce the firearms today's gun owners want and the legislative threats to that business."

The 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibits lawsuits against manufacturers or dealers of firearms and ammunition for harm solely caused by criminal misuse of their products.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 20:05

Bad News Overload? News Avoidance On The Rise

Tyler Durden — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 23:40:00 +0000

Bad News Overload? News Avoidance On The Rise

These days more than ever, it often feels like there’s no end to bad news.

In the age of social media and constant exposure to news, doom scrolling can take a heavy toll on people’s mental wellbeing.

As a consequence, more and more people actively try to avoid the news or at least limit their exposure to it.

As Statista's Felix Richter shows in the chart below, according to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report, an average of 42 percent of respondents from 48 countries included in the survey said that they sometimes or often actively avoid the news, a significant increase from 29 percent in 2017, when the question was first asked.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Selective news avoidance, as the Reuters Institute calls it, became significantly more widespread across all markets in recent years, with half of all respondents from the United Kingdom and 45 percent of U.S. respondents making an effort to reduce their news intake.

The Reuters Institute finds that news avoidance is often linked with low trust in the news and that there are generally two types of news avoiders: consistent avoiders who typically have low education levels and little to no interest in the news; and selective avoiders who struggle with news overload and try to insulated themselves from certain topic to protect their mental wellbeing.

Tyler Durden Thu, 06/18/2026 - 19:40