Authored by James Howard Kunstler via kunstler.com,

"Call me crazy, but I think Dem politicians in LA publicly encouraging riots helps explain why they’re also incapable of issuing building permits for the fires months ago." —Mark Hemingway

And pretty soon, expect action in a dozen other states, you can be sure, because just as it was in the scorpion’s nature to sting the frog crossing the river in the old parable, it is likewise in the Party of Chaos’s nature to sow chaos in an American summer.

Mostly Peaceful Protesters

The operation to cue riots over the removal of illegal immigrants has been well-planned in advance. Chief lawfare artists Norm Eisen and Mary McCord have engineered the legal strategy to oppose enforcement of US immigration law. They will clog the courts with lawsuits to prevent it and enlist their allied federal judges to issue injunction after injunction paralyzing the deportation process. They will work day and night to get their violent street cadres out of jail, just as they did in the 2020 George Floyd riots, so that these mutts can go back into the streets to loot and burn some more.

It is, of course, the most cynical operation imaginable. The Democratic Party hustled XX-millions of border-jumpers into the country under the authority of their phantom president, “Joe Biden” for one purpose: to flood the swing election precincts with enough new voters to keep the Party of Chaos in power permanently. Now that the illegals are here, the party will do anything it can to foil their removal. All the hand-wringing and crocodile tears over “fearful families and communities” is just stage-business to dress-up the CNN videos.

The ultimate goal of this operation is to goad President Trump into declaring some kind of national emergency to put down the violence, and the objective of that is to point at him and holler, “Behold the fascist tyrant!” That’s the game. The catch is, the Democrats are mistaken in thinking they can replay the George Floyd hustle.

This time around, more than 70-percent of the American public is not-insane. They are not fooled by the term “undocumented” — as if some mysterious clerical error was made by the federal bureaucracy in processing these millions. The actual error was allowing them to stroll freely across the border in the first place, with massive assistance from NGOs that provided smart phones loaded with helpful apps, plus free plane and bus tickets, plus freshly-minted debit cards for walking-around-money, plus posh hotel reservations.

You can blame former Homeland Security chief Alejandro Mayorkas — since “Joe Biden” was demonstrably non compos mentis during his term in office — for what was a patently treasonous act. How is it possible that Mr. Mayorkas remains unindicted? By the way, before he was sworn in as Secretary of Homeland Security, he was a board member of one of the most aggressive NGOs actively assisting the recent massive wave of illegal immigrants: the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS). The org, founded in 1881 under very different circumstances, has been enlisted to serve the Democratic Party’s program for flooding the voter rolls — just as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center have been transformed into attack dogs against the Democratic Party’s political opponents.

So, you watch now as the streets of Los Angeles fill with violent mobs waving Mexican and Palestinian flags burn cars, fling missiles and fireworks at police, and interfere with the deportation process of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. They are coming close to presenting themselves as a foreign enemy army and, as such, would invite a response from the defending US military.

It has the odor, at least, of insurrection, while Democratic Party politicians pretend that this is all just “peaceful protest.” LA Mayor Karen Bass skates at the edge of sedition as she orders her city’s law officers to “not cooperate” with federal authorities who seek to find-and-deport illegal immigrants. In her youth as a leftist activist, Ms. Bass joined the Cuba-sponsored Venceremos Brigade. She traveled to Cuba eight times in the 1970s for training in regime change operations. (She claims it was only to do “humanitarian work.”) Ms. Bass is also alleged to have been affiliated in the 1980s with the Oakland-based Maoist organization Line of March, in the 1980s.

California Governor Gavin Newsom appears to be just recklessly grandstanding, looking for a kayfabe fight with Donald Trump as he primps for his party’s 2028 nomination. You have to wonder whether the citizens of California — that is, documented citizens with bona fide US birth certificates — have noticed how Governor Newsom managed to wreck the state during his terms-in-office (and before that, as Mayor of San Francisco). By now, even the steadfast, Woked-up Democratic voters of Pacific Palisades must be a little bit suspicious that Governor Newsom does not really have their best interests at heart as he blusters at the president.

There’s another angle on the current violence, you understand. As the old song goes, Summer’s here / and the time is right / for dancing in the streets. Or fighting in the streets, as the Rolling Stones famously updated the idea in December 1968 — after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago in August that year. Street fighting is one of the capital amusements of the sore-beset Gen Z, stuck with unpayable college loans, faced with a daunting job market, reduced to living in Mom’s basement, addled with sexual bamboozlement, and jacked-up on prescription drugs and other mind-altering substances.

All of that feeds a lack of purpose and meaning, one of the more baleful plights of the human condition, in turn, feeding mass delusion, mob violence, and social upheaval. But it’s also party time, an opportunity to get outside in nice weather and consort with your peers, Z’s among fellow Z’s, illegal immigrants with fellow illegals. It affords opportunities for intrepid acts of daring-do — taunting the cops, flinging bricks, doing wheelies and “donuts” with motor vehicles — in order to impress potential sex partners. In other words, looking for fun and excitement, as youth will.

Alas, none of this works too well in an era of profound boundary problems — exploited very deliberately by the Democratic Party, which has erased the moral boundaries between decent behavior and crime, just as it tried to erase the boundary between the United States and Mexico. All of that needs to be fixed. Mr. Trump is aiming to fix it. It is liable to be a heck of a struggle, perhaps even as bad as a new civil war.

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 5 ruled unanimously that Wisconsin violated the First Amendment by not granting a Catholic charity an exemption from paying unemployment tax.

The Contemplation of Justice statue at the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington on May 19, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the 9–0 opinion in Catholic Charities Bureau v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission.

Catholic Charities Bureau is a nonprofit organization that functions as an arm of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Superior, Wisconsin. The bureau oversees several other entities that render charitable services to communities across the state.

Wisconsin law excuses religious organizations that are “operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches” from paying state unemployment tax.

The petitioner, Catholic Charities, argued that it is unconstitutional to allow the state to decide what work is religious in nature.

“The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny. The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [the state statute] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines. Because the law’s application does not survive strict scrutiny, it cannot stand,” the justice wrote.

Strict scrutiny is the highest level of review used by the courts. Under it, the government has to show that a law is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest and that the law is the least restrictive way to serve that interest.

Sotomayor wrote that Wisconsin is not the only jurisdiction that exempts religious organizations from paying taxes to cover unemployment compensation programs. Since Congress in 1970 approved the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, which contains language similar to that found in the Wisconsin law, more than 40 states have adopted similarly worded tax exemptions.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held 4–3 in March 2024 that Catholic Charities and its four related organizations that serve the developmentally disabled are not “operated primarily for religious purposes,” so they fail to meet the requirements for a tax exemption.

That court held that the activities of Catholic Charities do not qualify as “typical” religious activities because the organization does not “attempt to imbue program participants with the Catholic faith” and because the help it provides to those with mental and developmental disabilities could be carried out by secular organizations.

Sotomayor wrote that this means that the state court held that the organization could only qualify for the tax exemption if, when providing charitable services, it “engaged in proselytization or limited their ... services to fellow Catholics.”

The organization’s Catholic faith prevents it from using charity to proselytize, while many other religious organizations take a different approach, she wrote. This means that Wisconsin’s law on tax exemptions expresses a preference for some religious denominations over others “based on theological choices.”

Because the Wisconsin law distinguishes among religions on the basis of theological distinctions, it imposed “a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny.”

“Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny,” the lower court’s decision must be overturned, she wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin and sent the case back to that court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

The attorney for Catholic Charities, Eric Rassbach, hailed the new ruling.

“It was always absurd to claim that Catholic Charities wasn’t religious because it helps everyone, no matter their religion,” Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, told The Epoch Times.

“Today, the Court resoundingly reaffirmed a fundamental truth of our constitutional order: The First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, not just those the government favors.”

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the Wisconsin Department of Justice, which represents the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission. No reply was received by publication time.

By Martin Lynge Rasmussen of Money: Inside and Out

China has been preparing for further tension in the US-China relationship since Trump's first term, including by increasing the resilience of the Chinese financial system to external shocks. One key part of such plans is likely to reduce the importance of the US dollar for Chinese economic activity and increase the international usage of the RMB. We consider here (some) data relevant to tracking China’s FX diversification. Two trends emerge.

• Firstly, China has managed to reduce its reliance on the dollar by increasing the role of the renminbi. The dollar’s share of Chinese cross-border transfers has declined structurally in the last 15 years, from 80-85% in 2010 to 40-45% now, and the vast majority of the decline has been driven by higher renminbi flows. Relatedly, the CNH's share of global trade financing has increased from around 2% in 2021 to over 7% now (and picked up further since November), and has come at the expense of the dollar's market share. One explanation for the increasing linkage between renminbi cross-border transfers and its global market share is that the RMB is increasingly being used for 'real' economic transactions with foreigners rather than simply for cross-border transfers between Chinese entities.

• Secondly, against this, FX diversification has not made much progress. The dollar share of China's FX reserves, for example, seems to have remained constant in recent years. Relatedly, banks' external dollar net assets have been broadly stable in recent years and stood at $476bn in Q4-2024 (though gross assets and gross liabilities have fallen). But as China’s GDP has increased, dollar exposure-to-GDP ratios have declined. Non-USD FX net assets (e.g. those denominated in EUR) have remained minor and haven't increased meaningfully. And onshore FX trading remains extremely dominated by USDCNY, with very little trading in other pairs.

FX denomination of Chinese flows: structural decline but little sign of sharp drop recently (outside of trade finance)

The share of Chinese cross-border transfers that are denominated in dollars has declined from around 80-85% in the early 2010s to around 40-45% now. But the entirety of the decline in the dollar share is due to the rising role of cross-border renminbi flows. If we exclude CNY and only look at cross-border FX flows, the dollar's share of Chinese cross-border transfers has remained extremely high. As such, beyond the renminbi, other currencies have not become more dominant in Chinese cross-border flows.

This data is published by SAFE each month and measures cross-border bank transfers in both renminbi and FX.

From China's point of view, FX diversification matters as being cut off from the global dollar system, even if a tail risk, would reduce China's ability to carry out transactions related to international trade and investment. A question therefore is the extent to which the rise of renminbi in cross-border flows has led to an increase in China's ability to carry out trade with non-Chinese entities denominated in renminbi, or whether the flows simply reflect e.g. flows between mainland Chinese companies and their offshore subsidiaries (and other activities that wouldn't help China carry out international trade absent access to dollars).

Data from SWIFT suggests that usage of the renminbi has surged in recent years, though it remains very low relative to dollar usage. The CNY's share of global trade finance transactions has increased from 1.9% during 2018-2021 to 6.4% in November last year and 7.4% in March. We would think the freezing of Russian reserves has led to a sharp increase in the usage of renminbi in Russia-China trade, though other EMs might also have begun to dip their toes in CNY-denominated trade, too. Renminbi usage in payments has also doubled since 2022. At the same time, the dollar's share in international trade financing has declined from around 86% during 2018-2021 to around 81% now, a decline similar to the increase seen by the renminbi.

Since 2020, the rising share of renminbi in global trade finance and payments has trended together with the share of renminbi in Chinese cross-border transfers. This could suggest that cross-border renminbi transfers were, to some extent, driven by cross-border transfers between Chinese entities rather than with non-Chinese entities before 2020. If true, this would mean that the rise in cross-border renminbi transfers since 2020 has been due to "real" activities rather than 'financial engineering'.

The share of global trade finance denominated in dollars vs. renminbi has been closely inversely related since at least 2022. This also supports the idea that the renminbi's global usage has risen, and that it has come at the cost of the dollar.

When it comes to onshore FX trading, the dollar is as dominant as ever across different FX instruments as well as on the whole. This mirrors the total ex-CNY cross-border transfers, where the dollar also remains dominant.

Hedging behavior: gradual increase in hedges continues

Another way FX exposure changes is through changes to FX hedging ratios, which measure the extent to which FX assets are protected against moves in foreign exchange rates.

SAFE defines Chinese corporate FX hedging in terms of FX transactions, rather than via the share of FX net assets that are hedged. This ratio has increased from a bottom of <10% in 2015 to nearly 30% in 2025.

Banks' net FX exposure (as a percent of net assets) has declined from a high of around 3.5% in 2015 to below 1.5% by Q4 last year.

The two series are different from regular "FX hedge ratios" yet might still tell us something about "true" hedge ratios, given how closely they correlate over time.

FX exposure of Chinese entities: stable net dollar assets amid a decline in both assets and liabilities

Most Chinese foreign assets (including non-dollar assets) are held by the PBOC, though holdings by other entities have increased in the past decade.

The share of Chinese FX assets that are held in dollars has not materially declined in recent years, however.

As we have little insight into the composition of official FX holdings, we dig into banks' external assets and liabilities, for which we have better data. This data is compiled by SAFE on a BoP basis, and therefore measures Chinese banks' assets and liabilities against non-residents across both CNY and FX. We can see that, like for flows related to trade, it is a question of dollars vs. renminbi and that holdings of non-USD FX remain small.

Chinese banks' net dollar assets now stand at $476bn according to the BoP-basis data published by SAFE. This is much below the $1,115bn implied by the PBOC's data on net foreign assets of "other depositary institutions" (i.e., banks). Though there are likely differences in the statistical caliber of this data, we are surprised that this divergence hasn't gotten attention; we are not sure what is behind the large difference and will investigate the topic further. One explanation could be that the $1,11bn includes net FX assets held onshore, whereas the $476bn only includes assets and liabilities vs. non-residents. While it is technically true that Chinese banks' external net dollar assets have been broadly stable, it has occurred amid a $200bn decline in banks' external dollar assets and $224bn decline in their external dollar liabilities since Q4-2021 (i.e. before Russia invaded Ukraine).

There are many actors beyond banks in China, of course. To get a better sense of dollar holdings beyond banks, we do a rough estimate of bank vs. non-bank holdings of dollar-denominated loans and deposits, as well as bonds. More specifically, we apply banks' dollar share of external assets and apply this to the given IIP category (and our estimate therefore assumes that banks and non-banks' dollar allocations are similar across loans, deposits, and bonds).

Loans and deposits: Chinese external dollar net loans and deposit assets stood at $356bn in Q4-2024, down from $478bn in Q1-2022. Our assumptions furthermore imply that banks' and non-banks' external USD loans and deposit assets are of rather similar size. One explanation for the large size of non-bank dollar net assets could be that they have a substantial amount of dollar deposits with banks outside of China.

Bonds: the vast majority of external dollar net assets are held by banks, however, and non-banks' net assets only turned positive during 2023.

Watch WWDC 25: 

*   *    * 

Update (1312ET): 

That was quick. 

• APPLE TURNS NEGATIVE DURING PRESENTATION AT DEVELOPER'S CONF.

• APPLE SAYS APPLE INTELLIGENCE MODELS ARE COMING FOR DEVELOPERS

And puke.

*   *    * 

Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference has kicked off, where the tech giant will roll out the usual updates to iOS, iPadOS, macOS, watchOS, and visionOS.

One year ago, CEO Tim Cook unveiled "Apple Intelligence." Since then? A total flop... 

One year ago, the "experts" confused the post WWDC surge in AAPL stock with excitement over Apple AI (which was a completely disaster) when it was just a flood of stock buyback orders. Expect the same this year. https://t.co/X6ldA3fRfb

Tech blog Engadget offered insights on what to expect from today's event:

One of the big things we expect Apple to announce later today, based on the rumors, is a new naming standard for its various platforms. The company might move to a year-based identifier instead of an arbitrary generation number. That means instead of iOS 19, iPadOS 19 and watchOS 12, we could see iOS 26, iPadOS 26 and watchOS 26 to indicate the year most people will be using the latest software.'

. . .

As has become the norm, there is already plenty of reporting and rumors out there on what we can expect to hear from Apple later today. Some of the more intriguing include a major update to iPadOS that would make it more Mac-like and better for productivity, multi-tasking and app window management. Some less functional but still noteworthy changes, according to the rumors, include a possible visual refresh and new naming method.

Engadget's Nathan Ingraham noted, "Should we have an over/under bet on how many times we hear the words "Apple Intelligence" today?"

Will rainbows translate into more iPhone sales? 

On Sunday, UBS analyst David Vogt shared new survey data with clients based on responses from 7,500 smartphone users across the U.S., U.K., China, Germany, and Japan. The survey data painted a bleak picture of iPhone demand.

Key Survey Findings:

• U.S. and China Intent Drops: iPhone purchase intent in the U.S. dropped to 17%—the lowest in five years—while China fell from 22% to 16% year-over-year, hitting its weakest level in nearly a decade.

• Other Markets Mixed: The UK and Germany saw flat or slight declines, while Japan was the only country with a modest improvement (13%, up from 11%).

• Average iPhone Age Climbs: The average iPhone in use is now 22.9 months old, the highest ever recorded by UBS, indicating delayed upgrade cycles.

Vogt noted that Apple's new GenAI suite, branded as Apple Intelligence, has failed to spark any meaningful upgrade cycle outside China. 

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

OPEC’s crude oil production in May increased less than called for in the OPEC+ agreement which had a large output hike planned for last month.

All 12 OPEC members produced 26.75 million barrels per day (bpd) in May, up by 150,000 bpd from April, a Reuters survey showed on Monday.

The five OPEC members that have pledged cuts in the OPEC+ agreement and are now gradually unwinding these cuts had to raise their combined output by 310,000 bpd. But they only lifted production by 180,000 bpd, according to the Reuters survey of data from oil-flow tracking companies and sources at OPEC, oil firms, and consultants.  

That’s because Iraq made cuts to compensate for previously chronic overproduction and Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) raised output by less than their targets, the Reuters survey found.

Saudi Arabia made the largest hike in May compared to April. OPEC’s top producer and de facto leader, and leader of the OPEC+ alliance, raised output by 130,000 bpd, per the survey.

That’s not unusual as Saudi Arabia had the largest share of cuts.

OPEC+ producers who have made cuts in the previous three years are now unwinding these at a pace of 411,000 bpd in May, June, and July.

The OPEC+ group earlier this month decided it would boost July production by another 411,000 bpd, citing “current healthy oil market fundamentals and steady global economic outlook.”

In a note on Monday, commodity analysts from Morgan Stanley said the 411,000 barrels daily that OPEC+ said it would add to oil production in May did not materialize.

“Notwithstanding the around 1 million-barrel-a-day increase in production quotas between March and June, an actual increase in production is hard to detect,” the team, led by Martijn Rats said in the note, as quoted by Bloomberg.

“Notably, it does not appear that production in Saudi Arabia has ramped up significantly,” according to Morgan Stanley.

Still, the bank believes that OPEC+ would add some 420,000 bpd to its crude production between June and September, tipping the market into a surplus.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Trump made me do it.”

Across the country, this is a virtual mantra being mouthed everywhere from businesses to higher education. Corporations are eliminating woke programs. Why? Trump did it. Universities are eliminating DEI offices and cracking down on campus extremism. Trump did it. Democratic politicians are abandoning far-left policies. Trump did it.

For those who lack both courage or conviction, the claim of coercion is often the next best thing. The “TDI defense” is born.

Of course, they did not invent Trump, but they needed him. For years, schools like Harvard and Columbia ignored warnings about the rising antisemitism on campuses. They refused to punish students engaged in criminal conduct, including occupying and trashing buildings. These administrators did not want to risk being tagged by the far-left mob for taking meaningful action.

Then the election occurred, and suddenly they were able to blame Trump for doing what they should have been doing all along.

Administrators are now cracking down on extreme elements on campuses.

At the same time, hundreds of schools are closing DEI offices around the country. Again, most are not challenging the Trump administration’s orders on DEI or seeking to adopt more limited responses. They are all in with the move, while professing that they have little choice.

In other words, schools are increasingly turning to TDI to end DEI.

The legal landscape has changed with an administration committed to opposing many DEI programs as discriminatory and unlawful. However, it is the speed and general lack of resistance that is so notable. In most cases, the Trump administration did not have to ask twice. Trump seemed to “have them at hello,” as if they were longing for a reason to reverse these trends.

Many will continue to fight this fight surreptitiously. For example, shortly before the Trump election, the University of North Carolina System Board of Governors voted to ban DEI and focus on “institutional neutrality.” Yet, even Administrators emboldened by the TDI defense are finding resistance in their ranks. For exsmple, UNC Asheville Dean of Students Megan Pugh was caught on videotape, saying that eliminating these offices means nothing: “I mean we probably still do anyway… but you gotta keep it quiet.”  She added, “I love breaking rules.”

The Board, perhaps not feeling the same thrill, reportedly responded by firing her.

The same pattern is playing out in businesses. Over the last few weeks, companies ranging from Amazon to IBM have removed references to DEI programs or policies. Bank of America explained, “We evaluate and adjust our programs in light of new laws, court decisions, and, more recently, executive orders from the new administration.”

Once established, these DEI offices tended to expand as an irresistible force within their institutions and companies. Full-time diversity experts demanded additional hirings and policies on hiring, promotion, and public campaigns. Since these experts were tasked with finding areas for “reform,” their proposals were treated as extensions of that mandate. To oppose the reforms was to oppose the cause.

While some executives and administrators supported such efforts, others simply lacked the courage to oppose them. No one wanted to be accused of being opposed to “equity” or being racist, sexist, or homophobic. The results were continually expanding programs impacting every level of businesses and institutions.

Then Trump showed up. Suddenly, these executives and administrators had an excuse to reverse this trend. They could also rely on court decisions that have undermined long-standing claims of advocates that favoring certain groups at the expense of others was entirely lawful.

This week, the Supreme Court added to these cases with its unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, to remove impediments to lawsuits by members of majority groups who are discriminated against.

For many years, lower courts have required members of majority groups (white, male, or heterosexual) to shoulder an added burden before they could establish claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. In a decision written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court rejected that additional burden and ordered that everyone must be treated similarly under the law.

Many commentators noted that the ruling further undermined the rationales for disparate treatment based on race or other criteria within DEI.

In other words, more of these programs are likely to be the subject of federal investigations and lawsuits. Of course, if these executives and administrators were truly committed to the programs in principle, they could resolve to fight in the courts. The alternative is just to blame Trump and restore prior policies that enforce federal standards against all discriminatory or preferred treatment given to employees based on race, sex, religion, or other classifications.

Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey once observed that “to err is human. To blame someone else is politics.” That is evident among politicians. For years, many moderate Democrats voted to support far-left agendas during the Biden administration, lacking the courage or principles to oppose the radical wing of the Democratic Party. Now, some are coming forward to say that the party has “lost touch with voters.”

Rather than admit that their years of supporting these policies were wrong, they blame Trump and argue that the party must move toward the center to survive.

The calculus is simple: You never act on principle when you can blame a villain instead. It is not a profile of courage but one of simple convenience. No need for admissions or responsibility — just TDI and done.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Authored by Adrian Zmudzinski via CoinTelegraph.com,

Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has shared photos of goods in a Bolivian airport shop priced in the company’s stablecoin, USDt, suggesting growing unofficial use of the cryptocurrency amid the country’s ailing economy.

In a Saturday X post, Ardoino shared images of items being priced in USDt in Bolivia, including sunglasses and sweets. One photo showed a notice to customers that prices were set in USDT:

“Our products are priced in USDT (Tether), a stable cryptocurrency with a reference price informed daily by the Central Bank of Bolivia, based on the rate from Binance (a cryptocurrency trading platform),” the notice read.

The notice said customers could pay in either local fiat currency, Bolivianos, or US dollars. USDT was used to establish the dollar-Bolivianos exchange rate.

Source: Paolo Ardoino

USDt making waves in Bolivia

The notice and the items were photographed at Duty Fly, an airport shop offering duty-free items to its customers. Neither Duty Fly nor Tether responded to Cointelegraph’s request for comment.

It’s unclear how widespread the use of USDT is as a pricing benchmark across Bolivia, but other reports suggest that the stablecoin is gaining considerable popularity in the country. In late October 2024, major local bank Banco Bisa began offering a custody service for USDT, stating that it would enable its clients to buy, sell and transfer the asset through the bank.

Bolivia’s economy crumbles

Bolivia’s economy has been in steep decline. The country’s usable foreign reserves fell from $15 billion in 2014 to $1.98 billion in December 2024, equivalent to only 2.9 months of imports. Of that amount, less than $50 million was in cash, and the rest was in gold.

Bolivia has a thriving black market for dollars, with the street rate reaching about 10 Bolivianos per dollar as of mid-2024. The current official exchange rate is approaching 7 Bolivianos per US dollar.

USD/BOB exchange rate chart. Source: Google Finance

The Bolivian government also spends about $56 million per week importing diesel and gasoline, yet it still faces nationwide shortages. The local Consumer Price Index inflation stood at 14.6% as of March 2025.

One of the photos shared by Ardoino showed a pack of Oreos priced between 15 and 22 USDT, underscoring the rapid erosion of the local currency’s purchasing power.