ZeroHedge News

STRC Is Junk Credit In A Bitcoin Costume, And Retail Is Holding $8.8 Billion Of It

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 22:30:00 +0000

STRC Is Junk Credit In A Bitcoin Costume, And Retail Is Holding $8.8 Billion Of It

Authored by Glenn Cameron via BitcoinMagazine.com,

There is now $15 billion sitting in three securities being marketed to bitcoin holders as the safer, smarter way to access bitcoin exposure: Strategy’s preferred stack, STRC, and SATA.

The pitch is identical across all three.

Tax-favored. 11.5% income. Backed by bitcoin. Money-market risk. 82.7% of the buyer base is retail.

Every word of that pitch is wrong, and the security those buyers actually own is built to fail in exactly the bitcoin environment it claims to harness.

The Pitch Is a Story. The Capital Structure Is the Truth

STRC is an unsecured, subordinated, perpetual preferred equity. No maturity date. No lien on a single satoshi of Strategy’s bitcoin treasury. The dividend is discretionary, which means the board can cut it at any monthly meeting with no notice, no remedy, and no vote. S&P rates the issuer B-, four notches into junk territory. None of that information appears in the marketing.

Stack those features against the words in the pitch. “Backed by bitcoin” describes a security with no claim on a single coin. “Money-market-like” describes an instrument rated four notches below investment grade with no maturity and a discretionary coupon. “Safe income” describes a payment the board controls and the funding source for which is the security itself. Each phrase in the marketing is contradicted by the indenture.

That is not a money market fund. It is speculative-grade credit-like product dressed in safe-income marketing, and 82.7% of it sits on retail balance sheets. Of the $10.7 billion notional outstanding for STRC, roughly $8.8 billion belongs to retail bitcoin holders concentrated in a single junk credit. There is no polite phrase for that exposure. It is a bag, and retail is holding it.

The Funding Mechanism Eats Itself

The structural risk in STRC is not that the dividend is high. It is that the dividend cannot be funded out of the business. Strategy’s underlying software business produces roughly $477 million in annual revenue. Total preferred dividend obligations now exceed $1.2 billion, a ratio of 3.5 to 1. The gap is not closed by earnings. It is closed by issuing new STRC shares at or above par, or diluting common shareholders of MSTR, with the proceeds recycled to pay the existing holders.

That is a reflexive funding loop. It works when STRC trades above par and breaks the moment it doesn’t. Anything that pressures the price, a credit downgrade, a missed dividend, a bitcoin drawdown, a capital markets shutdown, removes the very mechanism the dividend depends on. There is no plan B in the indenture. There is no lien on bitcoin to seize. There is no operating cash flow to redirect. There is only the next share issuance, and the next, until either bitcoin compounds the company out of the problem or the structure jams.

Then there is the dividend ratchet. The coupon has moved monthly from 9% to 11.5%, embedding $268 million in permanent annual obligations into the structure. The rate has only ever moved in one direction. Each monthly increase makes the funding gap wider, the share issuance more dilutive, and the price floor harder to hold. The mechanism designed to keep STRC attractive to new buyers is the same mechanism that compounds the burden on the issuer and accelerates the run on the funding loop when stress arrives.

The Mythical Institutional Buyer and the Math That Buries Him

The standard defense of the Digital Credit category goes like this: surely informed institutional capital is on the other side. Insurance companies need yield. Pension funds need duration. Fixed-income desks need product. Digital Credit is the institutional bridge to bitcoin.

That defense collapses on its own logic. Any institution that allocates to an unsecured, subordinated, perpetual preferred layered on a bitcoin treasury must first underwrite the underlying asset. Any institution that does the work to underwrite bitcoin allocates directly to spot bitcoin, where the credit risk vanishes and the path-dependent fragility goes with it. The institutional buyer who is both informed and rational does not exist in this product. The buyer who does exist, at 82.7% concentration, is retail.

The path-dependency math finishes the argument. Across 5,000 simulated bitcoin paths at a 10% compounding rate, the credit model produces a 12.3% probability of formal default, a 21.9% probability of dividend deferral, and a 50.7% probability of at least one forced bitcoin sale by the issuer during the eight-year cycle. At a 15% compounding rate, STRC has a 44.6% probability of ending below $85 even on paths where bitcoin recovers to new highs.

A bitcoin holder’s terminal wealth depends only on where bitcoin ends. An STRC holder’s outcome depends on every drawdown in between, because the same mechanisms that pretend to protect the dividend in calm conditions become the mechanisms that consume the holder’s principal in stress. The product is most fragile in exactly the bitcoin scenarios the underlying asset absorbs without consequence.

Bitcoin Was Built to Kill This Exact Trade

Bitcoin’s entire reason for existing is the removal of counterparty risk, custody risk, and opacity from monetary holdings. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stack, and similar instruments reintroduce all three under a marketing layer the underlying instrument cannot support. The alternative does not require any of that machinery: bitcoin in self-custody alongside a U.S. Treasury income ladder produces the same cash profile, with more terminal wealth and no corporate issuer in between.

The market will eventually clear the difference between the security retail thinks it bought and the security it actually owns. Anyone reading the cap table and allocating anyway is willingly underwriting Saylor’s funding plan with capital that thinks it bought a money market fund.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 18:30

Is The Fed Finally Done Rescuing Markets?

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 21:00:00 +0000

Is The Fed Finally Done Rescuing Markets?

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

GLJ Research’s Gordon Johnson is one of my favorite analysts on the street to read and gets a rare endorsement from me (I hate basically everyone selling sell-side style research) because, like my friend Mark Spiegel, he is one of the last few analysts out there that seems committed to the truth….no matter how ridiculous it makes him look in the short term while he’s waiting for his theses to play out.

Johnson came away from this week’s Fed meeting with a conclusion that would have sounded almost absurd just a few months ago: the Fed may finally be breaking with the post-2008 playbook. And the timing couldn’t be better for the Fed to do this to make a total fool out of me. After all, I literally just predicted a month ago there’s no way they would ever stop the neverending cycle of QE they started two decades ago. Days ago, I satirically wrote that the only bear case left for markets is total human extinction.

Enter Kevin Warsh’s first press conference as Fed Chair with inflation running completely out of control. My friend GoJo makes the…err…bold claim that the Fed is not tweaking it’s post-2008 playbook…not adjusting it around the margins…breaking with it.

Johnson’s central argument is that Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as Fed Chair represented a repudiation of the Bernanke-Powell era and a return to a much older conception of central banking…one where the Fed’s primary job is delivering price stability, not reassuring investors, supporting asset prices, or providing a detailed roadmap for every future policy move.

The actual rate decision this past week was almost beside the point. The Fed held rates steady at 3.50%-3.75% for a fourth consecutive meeting. What mattered was everything around it. Warsh stripped forward guidance from the statement, calling it ill-suited to the current environment. He refused to submit his own dot-plot projection. The statement itself was shortened and reduced largely to facts. Nine of twelve participants now expect at least one hike by year-end.

Meanwhile, Warsh launched multiple task forces to reevaluate the Fed’s framework and openly emphasized the institution’s obligation to restore credibility on inflation.

Markets did not exactly celebrate at first (before, of course, turning higher on Thursday). On Wednesday, stocks sold off, gold weakened, two-year Treasury yields surged, and September hike odds nearly doubled. Investors who showed up hoping to hear some variation of “cuts are coming” instead got a lecture on inflation credibility and a reminder that the Fed’s mandate is not maximizing the S&P 500.

To Johnson, this wasn’t simply a hawkish meeting. It was the opening shot of a regime change. His view is that the modern Fed became two things after 2008. First, it became obsessed with transparency. Every possible future policy path was telegraphed through dots, forecasts, projections, speeches, press conferences, and carefully managed expectations.

Second, and more importantly what I argue all the time, is that it it became a de facto backstop for risk assets. Investors learned that serious market weakness would eventually trigger accommodation. Bad economic news became good market news because it increased the probability of Fed support.

Johnson believes Warsh is deliberately dismantling that framework. No dot. Less guidance. Fewer promises. More uncertainty. More emphasis on inflation. More willingness to surprise markets. In Gordon’s telling, the “Fed put” is not merely being questioned; it is being retired. That is a massive claim. It’s also why Johnson reaches for perhaps the biggest comparison available: Paul Volcker.

In a note out to clients this week, Johnson argues that Warsh’s intellectual instincts are fundamentally different from Bernanke’s. Bernanke’s worldview was shaped by the Great Depression and the dangers of deflation. Warsh’s appears much more shaped by the inflationary experience of the 1970s.

Johnson points to Warsh’s long-running criticism of quantitative easing, his concerns about balance-sheet expansion, and his warnings about inflation risk dating back more than a decade. He also highlights Warsh’s role during the QE2 debates, when Warsh publicly expressed skepticism about the very policies his institution was pursuing and eventually left the Board before his term expired.

In Johnson’s interpretation, today’s Warsh is the same man who spent years warning that emergency monetary policy was becoming permanent monetary policy. That’s why he sees continuity rather than reinvention. To Gordon, this isn’t a politician adopting hawkish language because it’s fashionable. It’s someone who has been making versions of the same argument for fifteen years and now finally has the votes.

This all sounds great. I hope Gordon is right. I have a sneaking suspicion that he isn’t. And before we start engraving “Volcker 2.0” onto commemorative plaques, it’s worth remembering a few things.

The first is that the easiest thing in the world for a central banker to do is talk tough. The hardest thing in the world for a central banker to do is stay tough.

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

Volcker’s legacy wasn’t built on speeches, communications strategy, or symbolic changes to Fed procedures. It was built on tightening until inflation broke despite overwhelming political pressure, market turmoil, and public outrage. The real Volcker test begins when unemployment rises. The real Volcker test begins when stocks are down 25%. The real Volcker test begins when Congress starts screaming and the White House decides inflation is suddenly less important than growth.

And that has been the time where the chickenshit cowards who advocate for today’s monetary policy go into full panic mode and capitulate, sometimes on national television.

If we’re being honest, the Fed’s institutional history doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Every cycle begins with stern declarations about price stability. Every cycle begins with promises that inflation will be defeated and that credibility is paramount. Then something breaks…a bank, a market, a major employer, a politically important sector, or the broader economy itself, and suddenly the framework gets rewritten, CNBC anchors shit themselves and act like 2 year olds throwing temper tantrums, and the Fed and Treasury come to the rescue. Then, the Fed chair at the time is praised for having “courage” and wins the Nobel Prize.

The emergency becomes permanent. The temporary facility becomes structural. The exception becomes the rule. The Fed’s modern history is not one of relentless discipline. More often than not, it’s a story of capitulation followed by a very sophisticated explanation for why capitulation was actually prudent policy all along. As Peter Schiff often says, “there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program”.

And that’s the part of Gordon’s thesis I’m not yet willing to underwrite.

To be clear, I’m not dismissing it. In fact, I think Johnson is right to focus on the reaction function rather than the rate decision itself. A central bank’s communication framework often tells you more than a 25-basis-point move ever could. If Warsh is truly trying to reintroduce uncertainty into markets, force investors to price risk without a guaranteed backstop, and reorient the institution around inflation rather than asset prices, that would represent a profound shift.

The problem is that every Fed chair looks tough before something important breaks.

Personally, I’m not ready to declare that Warsh is picking up where Volcker left off. I am willing to wait and see. If he continues prioritizing inflation over asset prices, if he accepts market pain as a necessary consequence of restoring credibility, and if he proves willing to keep tightening in the face of inevitable pressure, then perhaps Gordon’s thesis will prove correct.

What I do think Gordon gets right is the underlying inflation question.

As I have written repeatedly, if inflation is genuinely persistent, rate hikes are ultimately necessary. There is no magic workaround. There is no AI-powered escape hatch. There is no press-conference solution. Inflation is not defeated through clever narratives or optimistic forecasts. It is defeated through tighter monetary conditions that reduce demand, re-anchor expectations, and restore confidence in the currency.

History is fairly clear on that point, which is why so many people celebrate Volcker today while simultaneously advocating policies that would make a genuine Volcker-style campaign impossible. Everyone loves inflation fighters in retrospect. Very few people are willing to tolerate the economic pain required to actually defeat inflation in real time.

That’s why I remain skeptical. Because the Fed has spent the better part of two decades teaching markets that pain will eventually be relieved. Breaking inflation is hard. Breaking expectations and psychology that has become laden with hubris and euphoria is harder, as I wrote back in early 2025. Breaking the institution’s own reflex to intervene may be hardest of all.

So yes, Gordon may be right that the Fed put is dying. He may even be right that Warsh intends to kill it. But intentions are cheap. Every Fed chair sounds independent until the pressure arrives. Every Fed chair talks about credibility until credibility becomes expensive. As Mike Tyson said famously, “everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

I love reading Gordon’s take and will continue to do so. But I’ll only believe the Fed put is dead when the next crisis arrives and the Fed refuses to revive it.

I’d love to hear your take on what you think Warsh’s tenure will look like in our ongoing discussion here. Who’s stance do you agree with more?

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 - 17:00

US Private Credit Default Rate Remains At Record High: Fitch

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 20:15:00 +0000

US Private Credit Default Rate Remains At Record High: Fitch

As we have detailed extensively, most recently here: "Blackrock's Private Credit Fund Gates Investors Again After Redemption Requests Surge ", private credit firms continue to face a flood of redemption requests...

And after this week's report from Fitch Ratings, it appears any light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

As Andrew Moran reports for The Epoch Times, the U.S. private credit default rate remained at a record high in May, according to the latest update from Fitch Ratings.

Private credit woes this year have taken a backseat to various headwinds and tailwinds, whether the war in Iran or SpaceX’s blockbuster debut on Wall Street.

But data suggest that pressures are still mounting for the industry.

Fitch Ratings said its Private Credit Default Rate remained at a record 6 percent in May, unchanged from the previous month.

Monitoring approximately 1,500 private credit issuers, Fitch logged 14 default events last month. Healthcare providers, business services, and industrial manufacturing each registered three events.

Six serial defaulters—issuers that have defaulted multiple times—were discovered by Fitch. Additionally, half of the default events consisted of maturity extensions under stress.

“This continued the prior month trend of maturity extensions under stress outpacing all other default scenarios,” Fitch reported.

“Five of the seven maturity extensions pushed loan maturities out by one to two years from their original maturity dates, while one extended the maturity by seven months and another extended it by one month.”

It is unclear whether the worst is over for the $2 trillion private credit sector, as more investment firms continue to see client exodus or impose capital redemption limits.

Turmoil Persists

In a recent letter to shareholders, BlackRock Private Credit Fund stated that shareholder repurchase requests reached more than 13 percent of outstanding shares in the second quarter, pushing past the investment vehicle’s 5 percent quarterly limit for the first time since it launched in June 2022.

Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative asset manager, said earlier this month that it is capping withdrawals at its flagship private credit fund as redemption requests surged in the April–June period. It reassured investors that limiting drawdowns would boost long-term gains.

Partners Group, the Swiss-listed fund manager, halted redemptions from its Global Value SICAV fund at 5 percent after withdrawal requests reached almost 10 percent.

David Layton, CEO of Partners Group, said the majority of withdrawals are coming from the retail side, which accounts for about 20 percent of overall investments.

“What you’re doing is you’re balancing the needs of certain investors—a small percentage of the fund that would like to get liquid—with the needs of the remaining segment of the investor population that would like to see that fund continue to invest and continue to compound,” Layton said in a June 3 interview with Bloomberg TV.

The Swiss private markets juggernaut later shot down reports that it would cap more fund withdrawals following a spike in drawdown requests.

“Partners Group has no intention of altering any documented liquidity mechanisms and has no plans to freeze any of its evergreen vehicles, given their portfolios are healthy and they have sufficient liquidity in line with the target allocations,” it said in a June 12 statement.

Systemic Risk ‘Less Pronounced’

Concerns that private credit could be the next subprime meltdown after 2008 and 2009 have been widespread, fueled by growing retail participation and the “SaaSpocalypse.”

Private credit is widely exposed to the software sector, accounting for up to 20 percent of its loans. When software stocks were hammered earlier in the year due to worries that artificial intelligence would upend business models, the private credit industry also took a beating.

But a chorus of market watchers argues that systemic risks are minuscule.

“Systemic risk appears far less pronounced than between sub-prime and the financial system in 2008,” LSEG analysts said in a June 15 analysis.

“We note that [private credit] largely withstood the Covid and Ukraine shocks in 2020-22 and that both lenders and borrowers are well aware of the risks involved in these loans, whence the covenant-protection is generally greater.”

Investors seem to agree, as private credit stocks joined the broader market rally over the last few days.

Still the bounce remains modest amid YTD declines...

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 16:15

AI Doomsday Warnings Distract From More Imminent AI Concerns

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

AI Doomsday Warnings Distract From More Imminent AI Concerns

Authored by Daniel Nuccio via The Brownstone Institute,

AI is everywhere. It’s getting incorporated into everything. That’s simply progress, we’re told. And therefore we need to embrace it, lest we look like a Luddite and let China win (whatever that means).

Yet, simultaneously, a lot of people also are afraid because of AI. Very afraid. And sometimes, we’re told that we should be afraid too.

However, in public discourse surrounding AI, there often can be a lack of detail regarding what specifically we’re supposed to be afraid of. Sometimes it is not even clear what is meant by the term “AI.”

Technically speaking, as I have touched on previously, one could argue (as some older computer scientists do) that AI is an umbrella term for a family of algorithms based in math that sometimes dates back more than a half-century.

Practically speaking, numerous programs we’ve been living with for years like Google Maps and Amazon’s recommender system can be thought of as AI despite their lack of novelty. Yet, in public discourse, the term AI tends to refer to generative AI (e.g, ChatGPT), as well as any number of hypothetical future programs that will do everything humans can do but better, will therefore both solve all our problems while also putting most of us out of work, and also eventually just might decide to go full Skynet on us unless they decide that we’re not worth the trouble.

(Sounds pretty sexy. Perhaps someone should make a series of movies about it. Perhaps people will even like two out of five of them.)

Unfortunately, though, these more hyperbolic, sci-fi depictions of the threat(s) posed by AI tend to get more attention than, and consequently distract from, more realistic and more imminent threats pertaining to privacy, freedom, autonomy, and even just a way of life many of us have come to enjoy.

Automatic license plate readers, facial recognition, digital grandmothers, mandatory drunk and distracted driving detection programs, any of the technologies “grandson” was shouting about in “Autonomous Delivery Robot,” and wearable recording devices that transcribe and process in-person conversations for the anti-social and easily distracted are just of a few of the more realistic threats that come to mind. (And this by no means is a complete list).

Therefore, I tend to appreciate when members of our ruling class can take a morning to have a measured conversation about fairly well-defined threats posed by this technology (or suite of technologies), as was done at the US House of Representatives’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee’s June 4 meeting on the “AI Security Landscape.”

Superficially, the meeting’s discussion could probably be framed in terms of “Is the greatest threat posed by AI an external one in the form of foreign hackers looking to exploit vulnerabilities in the software controlling the United States’ critical infrastructure or an internal one born from the lack of regulation and accountability for AI’s use at home?”

From watching the discussion, however, it seemed less like a matter of “either or” and more like an uncontested response of “Yes and…”

Sandra Joyce of Google, Frontier Model Forum executive director Chris Meserole, and Corridor Security Inc. CEO and co-founder Jack Cable provided testimony regarding how AI is transforming the cybersecurity landscape as digital weapons fall into the hands of the cyber-barbarians at the gates who will use those weapons to find vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and/or deploy ransomware attacks.

“This technology has impacted cybersecurity in profound ways for both the defender and the attacker,” stated Joyce.

“[H]ackers have more powerful tools than ever,” Cable noted, naming Mythos and GPT-5.5 specifically.

“These models aren’t just hype,” he warned.

“They are truly starting to rival or exceed humans on security tasks and do so at an unprecedented scale.”

Joyce suggested “threat actors” don’t even need something like Mythos and can be quite capable of doing a lot of damage with an older program.

Emphasizing the threats from within, Electronic Frontier Foundation senior policy analyst Matthew Guariglia stated, “The question is not how do we reign in AI, it’s how do we reign in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public?”

In his testimony, Guariglia highlighted how the US national security state already uses a variety of tools that collect data on people without probable cause and that can make “inferences about a person’s politics, personal life, religion, and geolocation, sometimes inaccurately with major consequences.”

Furthermore, Guariglia said, “AI also has a track record of getting things wrong, from false citations on legal briefs to a major AI mistake that sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training.”

“There are likely more consequential examples that we don’t even know about because of classification that would prevent a more thorough accounting,” he added.

Similarly, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) observed, “We’re watching AI-powered monitoring systems spread to schools, to public housing, to hospitals with no transparency about how they work, no ability to challenge them, and no recourse when they’re wrong.”

In a later exchange concerning a possible scenario in which an AI program designates a city’s water supply as compromised when it is in fact fine and subsequently restricts the ability of the city’s residents to access water, Guariglia and Ramirez suggested that within the confines of current US law, transparency about how the problem occurred would likely be left up to the discretion of the city implementing the system while the question of who can be held accountable is a rather nebulous one.

Despite not quite being as sexy as battling T-800s in the streets for our lives and our livelihoods, more ransomware attacks, a further erosion of our privacy, and a lack of required transparency and accountability when HAL makes an oopsy and shuts off everyone’s water all sound pretty serious even if these things don’t quite warrant mass hysteria or a movie franchise. Perhaps they are even sufficient for reasonable concerns over the current zeitgeist to incorporate AI into everything. And maybe, just maybe, they provide reason to make us rethink our decision to connect everything in modern life to the internet.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 15:30

World Cup: Where's The Beer?

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:20:00 +0000

World Cup: Where's The Beer?

Authored by Noel Williams via AmericanThinker.com,

So far, the World Cup is living up to Gianni Infantino’s (FIFA President) clarion call to “unite the world” (or at least the participating nations therein).

Of course, that could quickly change when we get to the knockout stages of the tournament when they're more overwrought emotions and rivalries are more intense.

In the meantime, soccer fans from far-flung places are reveling in America’s beauty and bounty.

They appreciate America more than Dems, which is not surprising since most Dems are anti-American.

There are three glorious American attributes that are drawing particular praise from our World Cup visitors: the warmth and friendliness of the people (they must not be commingling with Dems), the natural beauty of the country, and the food.

But what about the beer?!

Scotland fans drank the pubs in Boston dry. At the Adams Taproom, they drank four times as much Boston Lager as the bar usually sells.

They better call for emergency deliveries because guess who’s in town next? England!

The English, like the Scots and other fans, are also loving America.

It must be a relief to breathe deep the fresh American air, and evade the P.C. Police in blighted Old Blighty.

The Three Lions (nickname for their teams) will play Ghana at Gillette Stadium (aka, Boston Stadium during the World Cup) next Tuesday — and they are not known to be teetotalers.

This exuberant fan is not atypical as he endeavored to get drunk before, during, and after the game against Croatia in Dallas.

"We're going to get drunk before the game. We're going to get drunk during the game. And then we're going to get drunk after the game."

The match doesn't start for another few hours, but England fans have a plan. pic.twitter.com/RSBYt2oguh
— FOX 4 NEWS (@FOX4) June 17, 2026

To the birthplace of the American Revolution: The English are coming, the English are coming. Let’s have a proper Boston Beer Party. Should they turn into unruly hooligans, there’s always Boston Harbor to sober them up.

Even if the ale and lager procurers underestimate the fans’ drinking prowess, America’s munificence is unparalleled.

It’s so refreshing to hear the objective opinions of our gracious visitors (mostly unaffected and uninfected by TDS), contrasted to the damning Dems.

For example, imagine the leftist angst incurred when a fan admired a scantily-clad cheerleader; the Scot in this sincere scene was simply agog (I doubt the Scottish ladies tartan tans compare).

Tartan Army are not used to cheerleaders! 😂@WeAreSTVRadio pic.twitter.com/sY00udItqX
— Cat Harvey (@MissCatHarvey) June 14, 2026

No longer dependent on the leftist press, our World Cup visitors can believe their “lying eyes”: we are still the last great hope of Earth.

Therefore, when the U.N. or other pretentious “dumb-gentsia” group ranks the most “livable countries,” they should consider their ability to host such a spectacular spectacle.

Go USA!

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 14:20

FundStrat's Newton: Why Not Replace The FOMC With AI?

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:45:00 +0000

FundStrat's Newton: Why Not Replace The FOMC With AI?

Short of abolishing the Fed (much preferred), would automating the Fed make more sense than the current system? Should we trust Kevin Warsh, Jerome Powell, and Lisa Cook to read the tea leaves each month and decree rate changes for us commoners?

That was Fundstrat's Mark Newton’s suggestion during last night's ZeroHedge debate on his H2 market outlook. He pointed out the new chair’s plan to eliminate “forward guidance”, a term invented under the previous chair Powell in which the Fed strategically signals its plans on rate changes so that those signals themselves might change rates organically by market forces.

It’s all a big mess… but Newton and BTIG's Jonathan Krinsky also debated whether the AI trade is in a bubble and which sectors look like attractive investment opportunities. Here were Newton’s remarks on the Fed and other highlights, though we recommend watching the full debate at the end:

Automate The Fed

Fundstrat's Mark Newton believes incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh could face a difficult balancing act from day one.

"I think he's got his work cut out for him," Newton said, noting that Warsh will be speaking for a Federal Reserve committee that has "turned clearly hawkish" while simultaneously facing pressure from an administration that "almost always wants to cut rates to juice the economy."

Rather than focusing on rate cuts themselves, Newton argued the biggest change under Warsh may be how the Fed communicates. "My take is that there's gonna be far less forward guidance or even a dot plot under Warsh, less communication," he said. Markets have become accustomed to a steady stream of comments from Fed officials, and Newton warned that the transition could create volatility as investors try to recalibrate.

WARSH: I THINK THAT MARKETS PERFORM BEST WHEN REACTING TO INCOMING DATA, THEY WORK LESS EFFICIENTLY WHEN THEY ASK HOW WILL THE FED REACT TO THAT INCOMING INFORMATION

Finally, the 4th wall falls
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 17, 2026

Newton also mused about automating the entire FOMC, questioning the dated practice of a council of economists working with clunky tools to periodically tinker with the entire nation's (and world’s) economy.

"If there's one area that's ripe for regime change by AI completely, it's the Federal Reserve," he said. "They're looking at data going back over the last few years to try to make decisions on whether to cut interest rates, which will take twelve to eighteen months to materialize in the economy. That does not make any sense in 2026."

pic.twitter.com/qLXBEgdTQs
— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 19, 2026

"The AI trade will continue into 2028"

Where many see a bubble, Fundstrat's Mark Newton sees an opportunity.

"I do not see a bear market in technology," he said, arguing that the sector is likely headed for a period of consolidation rather than a major decline. Semiconductors may need to "back and fill" after their recent run, according to Newton.

He remains bullish on the longer-term AI story but did say there are signs that it’s overbought near-term. Newton highlighted the Relative Strength Index (RSI) on the highly-watched Invesco Equal Weight Tech ETF.

"That's all a good thing for tech. It's just that when an RSI level of 78 on equal-weighted technology, it's not the best risk reward for me over the next three to six months."

On banks, REITs, travel, consumer discretionary, and healthcare sectors, Newton sees improving momentum, noting that "most European and also U.S. commercial banks have been showing very good strength" while REIT ETFs are "breaking out to multi-year highs."

"Consumers snapping back over the next couple months" following a ceasefire success, he said, would benefit airlines, hotels, and beaten-down discretionary names. Newton specifically likes Delta, Marriott, booking companies, and apparel Ralph Lauren.

pic.twitter.com/pnOF5LInOu
— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 19, 2026

Watch the full debate below, watch on Adam Taggart’s Thoughtful Money channel, or listen on Spotify.

https://t.co/jxITOFkt3p
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 18, 2026

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 13:45

Outrage As Suspect In UK Toddler Crocodile Attack Released On Bail; Identity Still Hidden

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 17:10:00 +0000

Outrage As Suspect In UK Toddler Crocodile Attack Released On Bail; Identity Still Hidden

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

The insane attack at a family-run zoo in Cambridgeshire, UK has now produced a fresh outrage.

A three-year-old boy from the area remains in critical but stable condition at Addenbrooke's Hospital after being thrown into a crocodile enclosure.

Yet, the 30-year-old man from Norfolk arrested on suspicion of attempted murder has already been released on bail until 18 September. Police assessed him as "unfit for interview" and continue to withhold his identity from the public.

Man arrested after child, 3, 'thrown into crocodile enclosure' released as suspect 'unfit for interview' https://t.co/NRmW0yzmkL
- GB News (@GBNEWS) June 19, 2026

This follows the initial reporting of the incident at Johnson's of Old Hurst zoo near Huntingdon. As covered in our earlier piece on the initial incident and rampant online speculation about the identity of the man who was arrested.

The boy and the suspect were not known to each other, and detectives from the Major Crime Unit treated the case as a serious criminal investigation from the outset.

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed the release after the assessment. Detective Inspector Verity McCann stated: "Our enquiries are ongoing as we continue to understand the circumstances surrounding this distressing incident. Our thoughts remain with the boy and his family, and specialist officers continue to support them through this difficult time."

Witnesses described a heroic intervention that prevented an even worse outcome. The zoo owner's wife reportedly jumped 15 feet into the crocodile enclosure to pull the injured toddler to safety.

Staff administered immediate medical treatment at the scene before emergency services arrived. The boy suffered serious wounds from at least one crocodile attack inside the enclosure.

Reports indicate he suffered a broken arm, a broken pelvis, likely stemming from the impact after being thrown, as well as multiple crocodile bites during the incident on Thursday afternoon.

Public anger has erupted over the decision to release the suspect.

Many see the move as further evidence of a justice system that fails to prioritise the protection of children and the public when confronted with extreme violence.

? #BREAKING: It has been confirmed that the man who threw a 3-year-old toddler into a crocodile enclosure in the UK...

...HAS ALREADY BEEN LET OUT ON BOND!!!!

The man is being described as 'mentally disabled' and police are STILL refusing to name him.

Witnesses say the zoo... pic.twitter.com/uBhxXhJkWY
- Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) June 19, 2026

Imagine living in a country where you go straight to jail for a tweet, but get bail after being arrested for 'allegedly' throwing a 3 year old baby into a crocodile enclosure! The world is watching is disbelief! pic.twitter.com/Do1ljHSofF
- Liam Tuffs (@liamtuffs1) June 19, 2026

Lunatics who throw toddlers to crocodiles probably ought not to be on the streets. https://t.co/lIijFzPlIh
- Carl Benjamin ??????? (@Sargon_of_Akkad) June 19, 2026

The pattern of releasing individuals deemed too unwell for interview while leaving the public uninformed about their identity has fuelled widespread demands for transparency and stronger safeguards.

Critics argue that mental health assessments should not automatically translate into freedom to roam when the alleged act demonstrates clear and present danger to others.

Meanwhile, Sky News headlines have drawn sharp criticism for their choice of language. The outlet repeatedly described the boy as having "ended up in crocodile enclosure" rather than stating he was thrown there.

BREAKING: Man arrested after toddler ended up in crocodile enclosure 'not fit for interview' and released https://t.co/eBomHyjDvC
- Sky News (@SkyNews) June 19, 2026

One report opened with: "A three-year-old boy who was seriously injured after ending up in the crocodile enclosure at a Cambridgeshire zoo was attacked by at least one of the reptiles, Sky News understands."

An earlier Sky News post had used similar passive phrasing: "a boy has been taken to hospital with serious injuries and a man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a toddler ended up in a crocodile enclosure in Huntingdonshire."

"Ended up". The toddler just ended up in the crocodile pit. Funny how all these kind of things end up isn't it. https://t.co/GeLLNAFhVX
- m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) June 19, 2026

This wording stands in contrast to more direct reporting elsewhere that used "thrown into" in the headline. Passive constructions like "ended up" minimise the deliberate nature of the assault and shift focus away from the perpetrator's actions toward vague circumstance.

In high-profile cases involving violence against children, precise language matters. Euphemisms erode public trust and fuel the very speculation authorities claim to want to avoid.

The decision to withhold the suspect's identity while confirming his release on bail until mid-September compounds the problem. A man arrested for allegedly hurling a defenceless three-year-old into a pit of crocodiles is back in the community.

Britain's justice system increasingly appears calibrated to protect processes and sensitivities over basic public safety. When posting opinions online can trigger swift arrest and denial of bail, yet an alleged attempt to feed a toddler to crocodiles results in prompt release, the imbalance is impossible to ignore.

The heroic actions of zoo staff saved a life that day. The authorities' response since has done little to reassure anyone that similar threats will be met with the seriousness they demand.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 13:10

US Probes Whether ASML's Advanced Chip Machine Ended Up In China

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:35:00 +0000

US Probes Whether ASML's Advanced Chip Machine Ended Up In China

Not long after Shenzhen-based Huawei unveiled what it described as a breakthrough pathway for advanced semiconductor production at the recent IEEE ISCAS conference, the Trump administration raised concerns that one of Dutch chip-equipment giant ASML's extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV, machines may have fallen into Chinese hands.

Bloomberg reports that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has raised concerns that one of ASML's EUV machines may have reached China despite US-led export controls.

ASML has pushed back on Lutnick's suggestion, explaining that none of its EUV machines, used to print the tiniest circuit patterns onto advanced computer chips, have ended up in the hands of the Chinese. This report is based on sources from the outlet who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

ASML says all 314 of its operating EUV machines are accounted for globally.

More color from the outlet:

Multiple senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive matter, said they have evidence indicating ASML is not acting in good faith — such as exports to China of gear specifically related to EUV tools, which ASML denied to Bloomberg. These US officials, who didn't comment on Lutnick's meetings with ASML, declined multiple requests from Bloomberg for proof of the shipments, citing the sensitivity of the information and sources. They also declined to say whether they have seen evidence of an actual EUV system in the Asian country.

The dispute adds pressure on ASML, with shares in Amsterdam trading down as much as 2% on Friday. Shares have advanced as much as 81% this year due to the AI and data center buildout narrative.

Here is Citi analyst Andrew Gardiner's first take on the US Government-ASML dispute:

According to Bloomberg (6/19), US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has told ASML of concerns that an EUV machine is in China, in contravention of regulations that prevent ASML from shipping EUV to China. No evidence for the claims was provided to journalists. ASML have reiterated publicly they have never shipped a machine or EUV parts to China. ASML can "see" each of the EUV tools running at customer fabs, as the machines send back data to ASML on their operations. ASML are now in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative, when no evidence is being furnished against their position. Given our time spent with ASML over the last two decades, including with current management in recent years, we find it very hard to believe that they would jeopardise their position in the industry, their reputation, or their technological leadership just to deliver an EUV tool to China.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Masahiro Wakasugi comments:

US concerns about Chinese chipmakers using advanced tools made by ASML might have little impact on its sales. Bloomberg News reports that in recent meetings, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expressed the concerns to ASML's leaders, saying one of its top machines might have made its way into China, violating US-led restrictions. But ASML says it has never shipped extreme ultraviolet lithography systems to China and has complied with tightening restrictions on deep ultraviolet tools. Also, using ASML machines to make advanced chips would probably require sophisticated tools from other foreign firms that also face restrictions. China is increasingly able to make more-advanced chips with legacy tools, so the US concerns may reflect Chinese engineering progress rather than any lapse in ASML's compliance with export controls.

Related:

Inside The Chip Chokepoint: Goldman's Five Key Takeaways From ASML Visit

US concerns may reflect China's progress in developing advanced chips, especially after Huawei's announcement last month of a potential breakthrough in semiconductor production.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 12:35

Federal Court Allows National Park Service To Replace Slavery Exhibit In Philadelphia

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:00:00 +0000

Federal Court Allows National Park Service To Replace Slavery Exhibit In Philadelphia

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal appeals court ruled on June 18 that the Trump administration can move forward with replacing a slavery-related exhibit at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia.

FILE - A person views posted signs on the locations of the now removed explanatory panels that were part of an exhibit on slavery at President's House Site in Philadelphia, Jan. 23, 2026. AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File

The decision from the Philadelphia-based Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the National Park Service from removing the exhibit. The city of Philadelphia had won that earlier ruling after an exhibit describing George Washington’s ownership of enslaved people was taken down.

The exhibit, located at the President’s House historic site, was removed following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump aimed at eliminating what he described as efforts to portray the United States as fundamentally racist or oppressive. The order directed the Interior Department to review and revise historical displays in national parks across the country.

As part of that effort, the National Park Service removed an exhibit in January that focused on nine enslaved individuals who lived and worked at Washington’s Philadelphia residence.

Philadelphia sued, arguing that agreements with the federal government required the city to be consulted before significant changes were made to the site. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe agreed and issued an injunction requiring the exhibit to remain.

However, the appeals court found that removing the exhibit was not an official agency action that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act. Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas Hardiman said the Park Service’s planned replacement displays still address the history of the nine enslaved people while also noting Washington’s stated opposition to slavery later in life.

According to Hardiman, the new exhibits recognize the injustices of slavery and preserve the stories and humanity of the enslaved individuals who lived at the President’s House.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Interior Department for comment on the decision but did not receive a response by publication time.

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker criticized the ruling and pledged to continue fighting it in court.

“I will pursue every legal action possible to reverse this decision. We cannot and WILL not rest until the full story of American history – including the existence of Slavery at the President’s House here in Philadelphia – is told, for our Nation and the World to see,” she posted on X on Thursday.

Despite the appeals court decision, the original exhibit may still be restored. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston recently ordered the reinstatement of all national park exhibits that had been removed under Trump’s directive. Shortly after the appeals court ruling, Kelley declined to suspend her order while the administration appeals.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/19/2026 - 12:00

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

Tyler Durden — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 16:00:00 +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 - 12:00

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.

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

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