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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beijing is pleased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As originally reported by Politico:

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

The post now reads:

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

Bitch please. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Billionaire-Tax-Billionaires

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

Even they know it's just a slush fund. 

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

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

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

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

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

As originally reported by Politico:

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

The post now reads:

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

Bitch please. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Billionaire-Tax-Billionaires

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

Even they know it's just a slush fund. 

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

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

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

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

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Depoliticization, Hegseth, And DEI

Authored by 'Cynical Publius' via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good order and discipline broke down.

Combat effectiveness declined as a result.

All thanks to politics—the politics of DEI.

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

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

DEI was and is an abomination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Military Depoliticization, Hegseth, And DEI

Authored by 'Cynical Publius' via American Greatness,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good order and discipline broke down.

Combat effectiveness declined as a result.

All thanks to politics—the politics of DEI.

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

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

DEI was and is an abomination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

California's $20 Million Attempt To Silence Medical Speech

Authored by Danielle White via RealClearPolitics,

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

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

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

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

The target is speech.

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

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

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

What's most remarkable is what California cannot prove.

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

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

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

That is a dangerous precedent.

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

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

Yet that is precisely what California seeks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California has chosen suppression over science and punishment over persuasion.

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

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

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

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

California's $20 Million Attempt To Silence Medical Speech

Authored by Danielle White via RealClearPolitics,

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

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

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

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

The target is speech.

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

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

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

What's most remarkable is what California cannot prove.

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

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

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

That is a dangerous precedent.

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

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

Yet that is precisely what California seeks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California has chosen suppression over science and punishment over persuasion.

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

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

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

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

Tehran Retaliates Against Bahrain, Kuwait After US Bombing Campaign Along Iranian Coast

Update(2300ET): Earlier the IRGC warned: "If any aggression is repeated, the response will be broader." That broader response has come in the overnight into Sunday hours: Tehran attacks Bahrain, Kuwait after US bombs Iranian coast, Al Jazeera reports:

Air raid sirens blare in Bahrain as Kuwait’s military says its air defenses are responding to "hostile missile and drone threats."

Iranian state media is also confirming the fresh 'retaliation' for limited US airstrikes over the last two days, triggered initially by the Iranians seeking to enforce 'control' of the Strait of Hormuz, by attacking no less than two foreign vessels in as many days.

Latest via the same publication:

• The US has bombed Iran for a second day, hitting the city of Sirik, Bandar-e Lengeh and Qeshm Island, following a drone attack on a commercial vessel near the Strait of Hormuz.
• Israel has bombed southern Lebanon, killing at least one person, a day after signing a framework agreement with the Lebanese government to end hostilities.
• Lebanese President Joseph Aoun asks Trump to help prevent Israeli violations, as Hezbollah rejects the agreement with Israel, describing it as “a surrender of sovereignty”.

Some unconfirmed emerging video showing some of the latest US action along Iran's coast, in a widening tit-for-tat:

US launched a fresh wave of attack against IRGC targets in Iran after Iran attacked Bahrain

A massive explosion struck Shahid Rajaee port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, shaking the ground and echoing through nearby towns. pic.twitter.com/RaPdGkVSsi

— IRGC NEWS (@IRGC_IRAN_News) June 28, 2026

Iran is threatening to walk away from the peace deal if the bombings continue: 

The IRGC is saying that the enemy – the United States – should know that violating the ceasefire is against the first clause of the MoU and will lead to a complete halt to the process.

It is clearly warning the United States that if these attacks continue, the MoU and the ongoing negotiations are going to come to a halt.

CENTCOM released footage from its earlier Saturday wave of attacks on Iran:

U.S. Navy and Air Force fighter jets conducted strikes tonight on 10 Iranian military targets at multiple locations in and near the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's drone attack on M/T Kiku. pic.twitter.com/Z0TLZRqmF6

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 28, 2026

*  *  *

Update1930ET): The Pentagon has sought to level the score once again, after Iran had attacked a second commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz in under 48 hours on Saturday.

Late in the day, the US military conducted more air strikes against "multiple targets in Iran". According to a fresh CENTCOM statement:

After yesterday’s U.S. strikes in response to the Iranian attack on M/V Ever Lovely, Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement but elected not to when its forces launched a one-way attack drone that hit M/T Kiku this morning at 4:30 a.m. ET. The Panama-flagged tanker was transiting near the Strait of Hormuz with more than two-million barrels of crude oil.

CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping. U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.

Commercial vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz continue. U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.

While each side has accused the other of violating the ceasefire, neither has yet shown itself ready to just walk away from the signed US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding - even if commitments are slipping.

*  *  *

A lot of escalation has ensued in the last 48 hours, starting when Thursday Tehran struck a commercial ship in the Strait of Hormuz, after which by the end of Friday US CENTCOM confirmed a series of fresh attacks on Iranian missile and drone storage sites as well as coastal radar installations, reportedly on Sirik Island located near the Strait of Hormuz.

Referring to Thursday's attack on a vessel off Oman, the Pentagon called it a "powerful response to yesterday’s attack," in the Friday statement. By early Saturday, Iran had re-retaliated and launched a fresh drone attack on Bahrain. Additionally, another ship in the Strait of Hormuz separately came under attack Saturday.

The Ever Lovely, via Marine Traffic

The Associated Press points to the obvious potential US-Iran deal (MoU) unraveling: "The attacks across the Persian Gulf show the danger of the Iran war again spinning out of control, even after Iran and the U.S. reached an interim deal to try and agree on a final accord to end the conflict" - though neither side has as yet indicated they are walking away from the deal at this point.

According to more details from the Saturday developments:

• Bahrain said it was targeted by "a number" of Iranian drones on Saturday, accusing Tehran of "undermining peace efforts" in the region. In a statement, the country's foreign ministry said it expressed "Bahrain’s condemnation in the strongest terms of the targeting of its territory at dawn today," adding that the attacks were a "blatant threat to the security of citizens and residents".
• US Central Command announced that American aircraft had hit Iranian missile and drone storage locations as well as coastal radar sites in response to Iran striking the M/V Ever Lovely ship with a one-way attack drone as it navigated the Strait of Hormuz.
• "The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack," CENTCOM said, adding that Iranian forces had "clearly violated" the ceasefire agreement.

But it remains that Iran is now firing warning shots at ships that haven't cleared permits to transit the Strait of Hormuz under Iran's own protocol, which highlights that deep divisions remain over each side's interpretation of the terms. The latest via Reuters:

• IRAN WEIGHS WALKING AWAY FROM SWISS TALKS AFTER US STRIKE
• IRAN MAY HALT SWISS TALKS AFTER US STRIKE ON SIRIK

Gulf states have newly condemned "in the strongest terms the treacherous Iranian attacks" on Bahrain, after drones hit the country's territory. The GCC statement further alleged that the Iranians targeted "civilian infrastructure and properties".

Other nations weighed in separately, with for example Kuwait's foreign ministry saying "The continuation of these aggressions, amid regional and international efforts aimed at de-escalation and reducing tensions, represents a dangerous undermining of efforts for peace and stability and a threat to the security and stability of the region," on X.

Amid all the tit-for-tat, Iran's IRGC is blaming the US for breaking it commitments under the signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). A Saturday statement described:

According to Article Five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arrangements for monitoring maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz are carried out in coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, according to the statement, the United States sought to violate this commitment through various movements and received an appropriate response, and the same will apply in the future. If any aggression is repeated, the response will be broader."

Laden Panama-flagged VLCC KIKU (IMO: 9329796) carrying Qatar Energy oil was struck during outbound transit of the Strait of Hormuz.

This is the second vessel struck by Iran since Thursday after the PGSA reiterated that the SoH is closed to those ships that do not have… pic.twitter.com/tWqPbTswaD

— Martin Kelly (@_MartinKelly_) June 27, 2026

Al Jazeera has meanwhile reported Saturday that that IRGC ‘targets’ US military sites in region after attacks - and so the response could be ongoing.

Independent journalist and pundit Michael Tracey points out sarcastically but aptly that Indefinitely bombing Iran sounds a lot like what you might call "endless war". And so the weekly tit-for-tat escalation might grow more regular until there simply is no more MoU deal to reference back to at all.

Ironically this comes just as Israel, Lebanon, and Israel hailed the signing of a 'trilateral peace framework' in Washington - and as Hezbollah is being pushed out of a political solution in south Lebanon, while the IDF occupation of significant territory remains.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 19:30

Tehran Retaliates Against Bahrain, Kuwait After US Bombing Campaign Along Iranian Coast

Update(2300ET): Earlier the IRGC warned: "If any aggression is repeated, the response will be broader." That broader response has come in the overnight into Sunday hours: Tehran attacks Bahrain, Kuwait after US bombs Iranian coast, Al Jazeera reports:

Air raid sirens blare in Bahrain as Kuwait’s military says its air defenses are responding to "hostile missile and drone threats."

Iranian state media is also confirming the fresh 'retaliation' for limited US airstrikes over the last two days, triggered initially by the Iranians seeking to enforce 'control' of the Strait of Hormuz, by attacking no less than two foreign vessels in as many days.

Latest via the same publication:

• The US has bombed Iran for a second day, hitting the city of Sirik, Bandar-e Lengeh and Qeshm Island, following a drone attack on a commercial vessel near the Strait of Hormuz.
• Israel has bombed southern Lebanon, killing at least one person, a day after signing a framework agreement with the Lebanese government to end hostilities.
• Lebanese President Joseph Aoun asks Trump to help prevent Israeli violations, as Hezbollah rejects the agreement with Israel, describing it as “a surrender of sovereignty”.

Some unconfirmed emerging video showing some of the latest US action along Iran's coast, in a widening tit-for-tat:

US launched a fresh wave of attack against IRGC targets in Iran after Iran attacked Bahrain

A massive explosion struck Shahid Rajaee port in Bandar Abbas, southern Iran, shaking the ground and echoing through nearby towns. pic.twitter.com/RaPdGkVSsi

— IRGC NEWS (@IRGC_IRAN_News) June 28, 2026

Iran is threatening to walk away from the peace deal if the bombings continue: 

The IRGC is saying that the enemy – the United States – should know that violating the ceasefire is against the first clause of the MoU and will lead to a complete halt to the process.

It is clearly warning the United States that if these attacks continue, the MoU and the ongoing negotiations are going to come to a halt.

CENTCOM released footage from its earlier Saturday wave of attacks on Iran:

U.S. Navy and Air Force fighter jets conducted strikes tonight on 10 Iranian military targets at multiple locations in and near the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's drone attack on M/T Kiku. pic.twitter.com/Z0TLZRqmF6

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) June 28, 2026

*  *  *

Update1930ET): The Pentagon has sought to level the score once again, after Iran had attacked a second commercial vessel in the Strait of Hormuz in under 48 hours on Saturday.

Late in the day, the US military conducted more air strikes against "multiple targets in Iran". According to a fresh CENTCOM statement:

After yesterday’s U.S. strikes in response to the Iranian attack on M/V Ever Lovely, Iran was given a chance to honor the ceasefire agreement but elected not to when its forces launched a one-way attack drone that hit M/T Kiku this morning at 4:30 a.m. ET. The Panama-flagged tanker was transiting near the Strait of Hormuz with more than two-million barrels of crude oil.

CENTCOM forces launched strikes today in direct response to continued Iranian aggression against commercial shipping. U.S. military aircraft targeted Iranian military surveillance infrastructure, communication systems, air defense sites, drone storage facilities, and minelayer capabilities.

Commercial vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz continue. U.S. forces remain vigilant, lethal, and ready.

While each side has accused the other of violating the ceasefire, neither has yet shown itself ready to just walk away from the signed US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding - even if commitments are slipping.

*  *  *

A lot of escalation has ensued in the last 48 hours, starting when Thursday Tehran struck a commercial ship in the Strait of Hormuz, after which by the end of Friday US CENTCOM confirmed a series of fresh attacks on Iranian missile and drone storage sites as well as coastal radar installations, reportedly on Sirik Island located near the Strait of Hormuz.

Referring to Thursday's attack on a vessel off Oman, the Pentagon called it a "powerful response to yesterday’s attack," in the Friday statement. By early Saturday, Iran had re-retaliated and launched a fresh drone attack on Bahrain. Additionally, another ship in the Strait of Hormuz separately came under attack Saturday.

The Ever Lovely, via Marine Traffic

The Associated Press points to the obvious potential US-Iran deal (MoU) unraveling: "The attacks across the Persian Gulf show the danger of the Iran war again spinning out of control, even after Iran and the U.S. reached an interim deal to try and agree on a final accord to end the conflict" - though neither side has as yet indicated they are walking away from the deal at this point.

According to more details from the Saturday developments:

• Bahrain said it was targeted by "a number" of Iranian drones on Saturday, accusing Tehran of "undermining peace efforts" in the region. In a statement, the country's foreign ministry said it expressed "Bahrain’s condemnation in the strongest terms of the targeting of its territory at dawn today," adding that the attacks were a "blatant threat to the security of citizens and residents".
• US Central Command announced that American aircraft had hit Iranian missile and drone storage locations as well as coastal radar sites in response to Iran striking the M/V Ever Lovely ship with a one-way attack drone as it navigated the Strait of Hormuz.
• "The Singapore-flagged cargo ship was exiting the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast at the time of Iran’s attack," CENTCOM said, adding that Iranian forces had "clearly violated" the ceasefire agreement.

But it remains that Iran is now firing warning shots at ships that haven't cleared permits to transit the Strait of Hormuz under Iran's own protocol, which highlights that deep divisions remain over each side's interpretation of the terms. The latest via Reuters:

• IRAN WEIGHS WALKING AWAY FROM SWISS TALKS AFTER US STRIKE
• IRAN MAY HALT SWISS TALKS AFTER US STRIKE ON SIRIK

Gulf states have newly condemned "in the strongest terms the treacherous Iranian attacks" on Bahrain, after drones hit the country's territory. The GCC statement further alleged that the Iranians targeted "civilian infrastructure and properties".

Other nations weighed in separately, with for example Kuwait's foreign ministry saying "The continuation of these aggressions, amid regional and international efforts aimed at de-escalation and reducing tensions, represents a dangerous undermining of efforts for peace and stability and a threat to the security and stability of the region," on X.

Amid all the tit-for-tat, Iran's IRGC is blaming the US for breaking it commitments under the signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). A Saturday statement described:

According to Article Five of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, arrangements for monitoring maritime traffic in the Strait of Hormuz are carried out in coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

However, according to the statement, the United States sought to violate this commitment through various movements and received an appropriate response, and the same will apply in the future. If any aggression is repeated, the response will be broader."

Laden Panama-flagged VLCC KIKU (IMO: 9329796) carrying Qatar Energy oil was struck during outbound transit of the Strait of Hormuz.

This is the second vessel struck by Iran since Thursday after the PGSA reiterated that the SoH is closed to those ships that do not have… pic.twitter.com/tWqPbTswaD

— Martin Kelly (@_MartinKelly_) June 27, 2026

Al Jazeera has meanwhile reported Saturday that that IRGC ‘targets’ US military sites in region after attacks - and so the response could be ongoing.

Independent journalist and pundit Michael Tracey points out sarcastically but aptly that Indefinitely bombing Iran sounds a lot like what you might call "endless war". And so the weekly tit-for-tat escalation might grow more regular until there simply is no more MoU deal to reference back to at all.

Ironically this comes just as Israel, Lebanon, and Israel hailed the signing of a 'trilateral peace framework' in Washington - and as Hezbollah is being pushed out of a political solution in south Lebanon, while the IDF occupation of significant territory remains.

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 19:30

Trump Signs Regenerative Agriculture Order To Boost Food Supply

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Signs Regenerative Agriculture Order To Boost Food Supply

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Civil War May Be Brewing In The Democratic Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) June 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Civil War May Be Brewing In The Democratic Party

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

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

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

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

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

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

— The Undercurrent (@NotTheirScript) June 24, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackling Error Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNAP Changes

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

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

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

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

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

A USDA spokesperson defended the department’s actions.

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

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

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

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

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tackling Error Rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SNAP Changes

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

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

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

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

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

A USDA spokesperson defended the department’s actions.

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

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

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

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

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

So the ceasefire is shaky but it seems …..

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

Below were the highlights for those short on time:

Voting Dems over Neocons in ‘28

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

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

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

pic.twitter.com/OMmAQa0FH7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026

Side Debate: Deport Mehdi Hasan?

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

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

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

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

pic.twitter.com/DwsxHVHSUe

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026

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

https://t.co/PgdhEZ2LUX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 26, 2026

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 16:55

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

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

So the ceasefire is shaky but it seems …..

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

Below were the highlights for those short on time:

Voting Dems over Neocons in ‘28

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

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

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

pic.twitter.com/OMmAQa0FH7

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026

Side Debate: Deport Mehdi Hasan?

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

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

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

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

pic.twitter.com/DwsxHVHSUe

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 27, 2026

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

https://t.co/PgdhEZ2LUX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 26, 2026

Tyler Durden Sat, 06/27/2026 - 16:55

Russiagate Prosecutor Calls Audible On 'Grand Conspiracy'

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearWire,

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

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

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

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

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

Holistic Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Documents & Whistleblowers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Past Probes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weaponizing Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persons of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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