Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

WalletHub analyzed 300 U.S. cities of varying sizes across ten metrics, including real estate tax rate, cost per square foot, median home price, and median household income. Each metric was scored on a 100-point scale, with 100 indicating the most favorable conditions for home affordability. For this map, only cities with a population over 100,000 were considered.

This map, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, shows the 20 most affordable U.S. cities to buy a home in 2025, according to data from WalletHub.

Detroit Tops the List for Home Affordability

Detroit leads the list, with a median price per square foot of around $87. The city has faced significant challenges over the decades, including financial crises and the decline of the auto industry, prompting many residents to leave.

Today, more than 22% of homes in Detroit are vacant, creating a strong buyer’s market. According to WalletHub, Detroit is also one of the top cities where buying a home offers greater long-term value than renting. The city was also considered the most affordable large American city in 2025, according to another study.

Also in the Rust Belt, Pittsburgh, PA, ranks as the second-most affordable city for homebuyers, with a median home price approximately 3.8 times higher than the median household income.

Like Detroit, Memphis, TN—ranked third—has also been highlighted as one of the most affordable large cities in the country for working families.

If you enjoyed this map, check out this map on Voronoi about the income needed to buy a home in every U.S. state.

Authored by George Citroner via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Scientists are sounding the alarm on what they call an overlooked threat to public health: synthetic chemicals from packaging and processing equipment contaminating the food supply—particularly ultra-processed items—and potentially fueling a rise in chronic health conditions.

Sergey Ryzhov/Shutterstock

A comprehensive review article recently published in Nature Medicine highlights some of the most prevalent types and sources of synthetic chemical contaminants in food: chemicals known as food contact chemicals (FCCs), which may contribute to chronic health conditions, including endocrine disruption, reproductive issues, and increased cancer risks.

Why Food Contact Chemical Contamination Goes Unnoticed

The widespread nature of FCC contamination may have escaped public attention because these chemicals migrate invisibly into food through routine processes we usually consider safe.

Unlike visible food safety concerns such as bacterial contamination or spoilage, FCCs transfer silently from materials that come into contact with food through four key routes, as identified by the researchers: transportation, processing, packaging, and preparation.

Transportation introduces FCCs through storage containers and tubing systems used to move food products. During this stage, chemicals from container coatings and transport equipment can leach into foods—especially when exposed to temperature changes or extended contact periods.

Food processing—the industrial transformation of raw ingredients into finished products—exposes foods to machinery, conveyor systems, and processing equipment that contain various synthetic materials. The high temperatures and mechanical processes involved in manufacturing can accelerate chemical migration from these surfaces.

Plastic food packaging represents a significant source of contamination, as it involves prolonged direct contact between synthetic materials and food products.

Food preparation, which differs from processing because it involves the final steps before consumption, often includes heating. Higher temperatures lead to increased migration, the researchers noted.

All FCCs that migrate into food or drinks are important because people will likely ingest them, the authors wrote.

The study identified how specific harmful substances migrate through these pathways. Bisphenol A diglycidyl ether—a known endocrine disruptor and potential carcinogen—transfers from coatings of metal food storage containers during transportation and storage.

Phthalates migrate from polyvinyl chloride tubing into milk during processing and transport. Even cleaning agents used to disinfect storage and transport containers can leave residues that end up in food.

Fast food products face particularly high contamination levels because they encounter multiple packaging types throughout the production and service chain, including disposable containers, wrappers, and serving material, said Bryan Quoc Le, a food scientist and principal food consultant at Mendocino Food Consulting, in an interview with The Epoch Times.

Serious Health Risks From FCC Exposure

The health implications of FCC exposure extend far beyond minor concerns, with research linking these chemicals to severe chronic conditions that affect millions of people, according to the study.

Phthalates in food packaging pose significant reproductive health risks, with certain types linked to preterm birth. This early delivery increases the risk of developing chronic conditions later in life, including kidney disease and diabetes.

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP)—a man-made chemical used as a plasticizer—demonstrates particularly concerning effects in adults, with studies associating exposure with obesity and diabetes. Some evidence shows a 40 to 69 percent probability that DEHP exposure directly causes these conditions.

Perfluorooctanoic acid—another common food contact chemical—carries even more severe risks. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified it as carcinogenic to humans, meaning it definitively causes cancer in people exposed to sufficient levels.

Bisphenols, including the well-known bisphenol A (BPA), function as endocrine disruptors, interfering with the body’s hormone systems. This disruption can affect reproductive health, metabolism, and development, particularly in children and pregnant women.

Alternatives like bio-based coatings, perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)-free barriers, and safer plasticizers are currently available, but they come with trade-offs in cost, performance, and shelf life, said Vineet Dubey, a Los Angeles environmental attorney who focuses on consumer safety issues, in an interview with The Epoch Times.

“As always, change will take time and requires the buy-in of food companies, which have already invested in technology, factories, and industrial farm-to-table systems that package food the ‘old’ way,” he noted.

Ultra-Processed Foods–The Highest Risk Category

Ultra-processed foods face the greatest contamination risk due to their complex manufacturing processes and extensive packaging requirements, according to the recent study.

These products include breakfast cereals and bars, ready-made frozen meals, processed meats like chicken nuggets, energy drinks with significant added sugar, packaged bread, sodas, snacks like cookies and chips, candy, and condiments like ketchup and mayonnaise, Dr. Mia Kazanjian, the co-director of Stamford Health’s Breast Center, who was not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times.

“These are the foods that are exposed to these chemicals most during the packaging, processing, and storage,” she said.

Protecting Yourself From Food Contact Chemicals

Despite the widespread nature of FCC contamination, people can take practical steps to reduce their exposure and protect their health.

Dietary Changes

Health experts recommend reducing the consumption of ultra-processed foods when possible. Instead, prioritize fresh, whole foods that require minimal processing and packaging.

When purchasing packaged foods, choose products with minimal packaging or packaging made from safer materials. Glass and stainless steel containers pose significantly lower risks than plastic alternatives because they are less likely to leach harmful chemicals into food.

Storage Solutions

Replace plastic food storage containers with glass or stainless steel alternatives. These materials resist chemical migration better.

Avoid heating food in plastic containers, as elevated temperatures accelerate chemical migration from plastic into food. Transfer food to glass or ceramic containers before microwaving or heating.

Preparation Practices

Use wooden, glass, or stainless steel utensils and cutting boards instead of plastic alternatives when possible. Plastic cutting boards can contain hundreds of chemicals.

Choose fresh ingredients over packaged alternatives when possible, and prepare meals at home rather than relying on heavily packaged convenience foods.

Call to Action

Kazanjian expressed hope that in the foreseeable future, our food system can be redesigned to minimize the use of potentially hazardous synthetic chemicals.

“It starts with more widespread awareness,” she said, adding that the more people know about this, the more advocacy there will be, and the more movement we will have toward a safer food supply—but it will take time.

“But certain things can be done in short order,” Kazanjian added. “For example, we need more advanced testing to pick up on all the chemicals in these products. Then we need food companies to avoid using them and invest in safer alternatives.”

Lead study author Jane Muncke emphasizes the need for a “holistic” approach to policymaking that integrates considerations of planetary and human health, including FCCs and their effects.

Recent regulatory action provides some hope. In 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration revoked authorizations for 23 phthalates in food contact use and limited use to nine compounds. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now requires manufacturers and processors of Di-n-pentyl phthalate, a specific phthalate, to notify the agency before starting or resuming new uses.

According to Muncke, all food packaging, processing equipment, and other food contact materials require adequate safety testing regarding migrating food contact chemicals and microplastics using modern testing methods.

Quoc Le said, “The more we learn about this topic, the clearer it becomes that there is a real problem, which may explain many health problems that exist today—especially those that are severe and undiagnosed in some individuals.”

Authored by S.A. McCarthy via The Washington Stand,

President Joe Biden issued 162 executive orders over the course of his Oval Office tenure, but according to a new report, most of them were signed by “autopen,” giving rise to concerns that unelected White House staffers may have had more say in shaping policy than the president. The report is furthering those concerns and suggesting that Biden may not have even been aware of the existence of the orders being signed in his name.

The American energy advocacy group Power the Future published the report Wednesday, examining eight Biden-era executive orders on climate change and U.S. energy policy, and found “no evidence” that Biden ever spoke about or acknowledged the existence of any of these orders. “Not in a press conference. Not in a speech. Not even a video statement,” Power the Future’s report stated. Power the Future Executive Director Daniel Turner said in a statement, “Americans deserve to know which unelected staffers or radical unnamed activists implemented sweeping change through an autopen. The Biden energy agenda destroyed the livelihoods of energy workers and fueled the record-high inflation that broke the budgets of millions of Americans.” He asked, “The question is simple, and deserves an immediate answer: what did Joe Biden know, and when did he know it?”

According to the Oversight Project, dedicated to government accountability, practically every order signed by Biden was signed via autopen, with the exception of his announcement withdrawing from the 2024 presidential election. The Oversight Project cited House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who questioned Biden on an executive order affecting liquefied natural gas (LNG) and reported that the president didn’t remember signing the order. “He looks at me, stunned, and he said, ‘I didn’t do that,’” Johnson recounted. He continued, “And I said to him, ‘Mr. President, yes you did, it was an executive order, like, you know, three weeks ago.’ And he goes, ‘No, I didn’t do that.’ … It occurred to me … he was not lying to me. He genuinely did not know what he had signed.”

“For investigators to determine whether then-President Biden actually ordered the signature of relevant legal documents, or if he even had the mental capacity to, they must first determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place,” the Oversight Project wrote in a social media post. The accountability organization continued, “Given President Biden’s decision to revoke Executive Privilege for individuals advising Trump during his first Presidency, this is a knowable fact that can be determined with the correct legal process…”

The “autopen” has been the subject of significant controversy in recent years due to Biden’s excessive use of the technology. Devices have been around for centuries, allowing individuals to replicate their signature or sign multiple documents at once. Thomas Jefferson, for example, kept an early prototype, then called a “polygraph,” in the White House and another in his residence at Monticello. The device allowed a user to sign multiple documents at once but did require the signer to be present and to actively use the machine.

In the late 1930s, an automated version of the machine was developed, called the “autopen,” which would store a template of a signature that could be reproduced without the presence of the actual signer. The autopen became commercially available in the early 1940s and was quickly purchased by politicians, government officials, celebrities, and others. The first U.S. president to use an autopen was reportedly Harry Truman, although he only used the device to sign checks and answer mail. Likewise, most other presidents — such as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford — who used an autopen relegated their use of the instrument to signing checks, correspondence, and autographs.

George W. Bush considered using the autopen to sign executive orders and legislation and even got the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) approval to do so, but still insisted on signing such documents himself, flying to Washington, D.C. to sign emergency legislation in 2005, for example. Barack Obama was the first president to use the autopen to sign legislation, giving his approval to sign Patriot Act extensions via autopen while he was visiting France in 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act while vacationing in Hawaii in 2012, and fiscal legislation in 2013.

President Donald Trump has openly refused to use autopen signatures for executive orders and other legal documents. “We may use it, as an example, to send some young person a letter because it’s nice,” Trump told reporters in March. Contrasting his limited use of the autopen against Biden’s much broader use, Trump added, “But to sign pardons and all of the things that he signed with an autopen is disgraceful.” Trump has also suggested that pardons — and, potentially, executive orders — signed by the Biden administration via autopen may be legally “void” if the president didn’t know what he was signing or didn’t authorize its signature.

The Washington Stand asked the DOJ about potential investigations and, if applicable, prosecutions of the Biden administration’s autopen use and was told, “No comment here.”

The Baltimore Peninsula—formerly known as Port Covington—is a 235-acre, large-scale mixed-use waterfront redevelopment in South Baltimore, which one YouTuber has called it a "billion-dollar ghost town." 

"This video explores Baltimore's newest and swankiest waterfront neighborhood," YouTuber "Building Tales" wrote in the description of the video, adding, "It's a beautiful Saturday, but there's just one thing missing … people." 

The video description continued, "On this particular Saturday I walked around for a half hour and could just about count all the people I saw on one hand. So what's going on here… why are there all of these beautiful new buildings but seemingly no one here to use them?" 

Major developers of the waterfront redevelopment project include:

• Sagamore Ventures (Kevin Plank, Under Armour founder)

• Goldman Sachs Urban Investment Group

• MAG Partners (New York-based, led by MaryAnne Gilmartin)

• MacFarlane Partners (San Francisco-based real estate firm)

Financing on the deal included: 

• Public and private financing: Over $5.5 billion in total investment planned

• Largest TIF (Tax Increment Financing) in Baltimore history: $660 million approved in public bonds to fund infrastructure

So far, the struggling apparel brand Under Armour remains the large anchor tenant at Baltimore Peninsula, with a new global headquarters. Much of the surrounding office and retail space has been built on speculation, with hopes that additional tenants will follow.

According to one industry insider, a key challenge facing Baltimore City's commercial real estate market is the growing number of competing business districts—both completed and under development—that are attracting tenants, such as Harbor East. 

The broader issue is that Baltimore City Hall remains under the control of radical leftist activists whose decade-long social justice experiment has backfired, igniting recent violent crime waves. The population in the metro area has plunged to a 100-year low as residents and businesses flee the crime-infested area. 

Whether it's the population collapse, violent crime, mass exodus of residents, or the sight of a "ghost town" in a major new commercial development—Baltimore's decline all points back to one root cause: decades of failed progressive leadership at City Hall.

Authored by Manouk Termaaten (founder and CEO of Vertical Studio AI) via CoinTelegraph.com,

Major corporations control decentralized AI (DeAI) companies, leaving decentralized AI in the dust. To build a more decentralized world, the sector must actively execute upon a focused DeAI strategy, with shared standards between projects, without compromise.

In April, a UN report warned that AI’s $4.8-trillion market is dominated by a mere 100 companies, most of which are based in the US and China. Centralized AI incumbents have the money and the connections to control this massive new industry, which means significant implications for society. 

These companies, all employing centralized AI technology, have run into their fair share of headaches. For example, Microsoft’s Copilot garnered attention for creating explicit, inappropriate images, such as children in compromising scenarios. This sparked a public and regulatory backlash.

Although Microsoft created stricter moderation, it had already demonstrated that centralized AI can harbor problems in part due to its closed-source code. 

Citadel was wrapped up in an AI trading scandal in the financial sector, as algorithms allegedly manipulated stock prices via artificial volume creation.

Google’s Project Maven, a Pentagon pilot program used in military tech, has raised ethical questions.

“We believe that Google should not be in the business of war,” reads a letter penned by Google employees and addressed to Sundar Pichai, the company’s CEO. The employees requested that Google leave Project Maven.

“We ask that Project Maven be cancelled, and that Google draft, publicize and enforce a clear policy stating that neither Google nor its contractors will ever build warfare technology,” the letter states.

So much for “Don’t be evil” — the company’s old slogan.

These situations give us clear examples of the potential failures of centralized AI, including ethical lapses, opaque decision-making and monopolistic control. DeAI’s open-source ethos, community governance, audit trails and computer facilities can give more than a few massive corporations an edge in the future of AI. 

Centralized AI gains more power 

Corporations and nation-states maintain an upper hand in AI development today — not DeAI projects. Nation-states and corporations can and do outspend DeAI.

Nation-states see that the stakes are high, as Russian President Vladimir Putin highlighted when he warned that the country that wins the AI race will “become the ruler of the world.” The People’s Republic of China aims to become the global leader in AI by 2030. 

AI will likely develop an authoritarian bent and feature the pervasive lack of privacy proliferating across today’s World Wide Web, all defined by a corporate state that maintains only a veneer of sharing the fundamental values of the Enlightenment.

DeAI faces an uphill battle

The chances for DeAI to carve out a considerable market share are relatively small. The incumbents are so well-resourced that the battle is one of David and Goliath. Nation-states and corporations will maintain the lead on access to AI, making it all but guaranteed that most of the world will interface with AI first on centralized systems, giving them early adopter status. 

But on a long enough timeline — decades or hundreds of years — DeAI can win market share via open-sourced models and transparent developer documentation.

To realize the vision of DeAI, the sector will have to maximize AI’s benefits with security. DeAI must execute on privacy and data control, resilience, scalability, reduced latency, access democratization and cost-efficiency. It must do this as a community and express its values to the world — regulators, consumers, investors and more. 

DeAI brings numerous advantages over centralized AI systems, like improved privacy and data control, no single point of failure, edge computing and democratized access.

Despite these advantages, AI will undoubtedly be dominated by the prominent state-enterprise apparatus characteristic of the neoliberal world. 

To create a more decentralized world, it’s time to proactively implement a clear DeAI strategy and establish common standards across projects, ensuring these are upheld without compromise.

Authored by Fred Fleitz via American Greatness,

Whenever I go on British TV news programs for interviews about President Trump’s efforts to stop the fighting in Ukraine, I am usually asked two leading questions by condescending British TV hosts: “Do you think President Trump’s Ukraine policy has failed?” and “Do you think Russian President Putin is playing President Trump?’

I always answer that these are biased questions that misrepresent how the war in Ukraine started and Trump’s efforts to end it.

Indeed, President Trump has not yet succeeded in ending this brutal war. Russian President Putin has indeed been difficult to deal with, has failed to abide by his commitments with Trump and his officials, and has escalated the war despite Trump’s peace efforts.

It is unfair to portray these potentially temporary outcomes as failures of Trump’s Ukraine policy, as they ignore that his peace efforts aim to address an enormous foreign policy crisis caused by his predecessor that may not be easily fixed or solved.

Biden emboldened Putin to invade Ukraine by ignoring the Russian leader’s fear of Ukraine moving closer to the West and joining NATO. Although Biden and his senior officials never explicitly called for Ukraine to join NATO, they dangled NATO membership before Ukrainian President Zelensky and repeatedly said this decision was up to Ukraine. Biden further confused the situation by stating several times in 2021 that the United States and NATO would stand behind Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity,” statements that sounded like Biden offered Ukraine security guarantees. In addition, during a June 2021 NATO Summit, NATO reaffirmed the commitment made at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would one day become a member.

Biden also encouraged Putin to invade Ukraine with extraordinarily weak American national security policies. The most notorious was the disastrous U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin was emboldened to invade by other cases of Biden’s foreign policy incompetence, especially Biden’s statement weeks before Russian troops crossed into Ukraine when he said the U.S. and its allies might be divided on how to respond if a Russian invasion was a “minor incursion.”

In addition, Biden destroyed U.S. relations with Russia after the start of the war by repeatedly demonizing Putin and failing to engage in diplomacy with the Russian leader to end the war. Biden never spoke with Putin after Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Instead, he repeatedly harshly criticized Putin, often calling him a war criminal. Biden also likened Putin to Hamas after the horrific October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack against Israel.

Biden and European leaders also pursued policies that caused the war to become a stalemate, which Ukraine will eventually lose. They refused to give Ukraine the weapons it requested in mid-2022 that probably would have enabled it to repel Russian forces from most of its territory. This refusal allowed the Russian army to recover and regroup after suffering heavy losses at the beginning of the invasion. Biden followed this mistake with a policy to arm Ukraine “for as long as it takes” with no strategy either for a Ukrainian victory or to negotiate an end to the war.

Therefore, to say that Trump came to the war in Ukraine as president with the deck stacked against him is an understatement. Although Putin is ultimately responsible for this deadly and unprovoked war, it would not have happened if Biden had not antagonized Putin and ignored his sensitivities about Ukraine. U.S. and European policies also made it impossible for Ukraine to win the war in 2022, made the war worse, and discouraged diplomacy to end the conflict.

In addition, this conflict was made more complex after Biden’s mishandling of U.S.-Russia relations drove Putin into the arms of Chinese President Xi, causing Russia and China to declare a “no limits” partnership and create a new anti-Western axis. Iran and North Korea are at least informal members of this axis.

Trump finds the Ukraine war difficult to end because Biden’s foreign policy failures were so severe. This does not mean the war is unsolvable. But it may mean that the Ukraine mess Biden left for Trump will be far more difficult to clean up than anyone thought.

It is possible that Biden’s Ukraine mess can’t be cleaned up, and the Russian leader will refuse to reach a peaceful settlement on any terms short of Ukrainian capitulation. I also believe the odds are long for a peace agreement right now and that it might take months or years of negotiations to reach a possible peace agreement acceptable to Ukraine.

The next time I am on the BBC and am asked about this issue, I plan to stress that I believe President Trump is ready for the possibility that the Ukraine War is unsolvable and will make clear, if he concludes that the war cannot be ended, that the failure lies with Biden. I will also say that Trump will probably take steps if the Ukraine War cannot be ended to ensure that similar conflicts do not break out in the future and to keep the United States out of similar wars.

Hawaii became the first U.S. state to establish a climate impact fee on tourism this week, placing an additional tax on visitors to fund "climate change resiliency projects".  As the country's inaugural "Green Fee," Act 96 will raise the state's current transient accommodations tax (TAT) by 0.75% for a total of 11% placed upon the nightly lodging rate, effective Jan. 1, 2026, according to a press release by Governor Josh Green's office.

“Today Hawaiʻi ushers in the first Green Fee in the nation. Once again, Hawaiʻi is at the forefront of protecting our natural resources, recognizing their fundamental role in sustaining the ecological, cultural and economic health of Hawaiʻi. As an island chain, Hawaiʻi cannot wait for the next disaster to hit before taking action. We must build resiliency now, and the Green Fee will provide the necessary financing to ensure resources are available for our future,” said Governor Green.

Green is ostensibly referring to the disastrous Maui fires in 2023 which did $5.5 billion in property damage and became an international embarrassment for the Hawaiian state government.  Of course, as we reported at the time, the fires had nothing to do with "climate change" and everything to do with the state's gross mismanagement of water resources and fire response.

The new Green Fee will apply to travelers staying in hotels, short-term vacation rentals and for the first time ever, cruise ships. For a nightly hotel rate of $300, the tax would add an extra $2.25 each day.  This might not seem like much, but Hawaiian officials expect the tax to generate up to $100 million per year, and like all progressive governments, they are licking their chops over the possibilities.

In essence, carbon footprint schemes are a tax on an invisible byproduct with an imaginary climate impact.  These are taxes to solve a problem which does not exist.  So, the sky is truly the limit on how far carbon taxes can be taken to bleed the American public and fuel further government expansion.  It begins with a tax on hotel rooms, but there's nothing stopping the state from adding the same fees to everything from boat rentals to tiki torches. 

Furthermore, if Hawaiian residents think they will be spared from such taxes, they are in for a rude awakening.  The new Green Fee also applies to people living in Hawaii who stay at hotels and resorts, and there's little doubt that more taxes are incoming as the Green Fee sets the precedent.  Some legislators have pushed for carbon tax "kickback" to residents of the state, but this would represent a minimal offset if carbon taxes spread to all areas of the economy.

Keep in mind, Hawaii already has one of the highest tax burdens for citizens in the entire US.

Hawaii's carbon reduction plans call for a 70% cut in emissions by 2030, using a "phased-in system" with a carbon tax rate of $80 per ton of carbon emissions by that year.  Hawaii want zero emissions by 2045.  Meaning, a green fee on hotels is just the beginning and everything with a carbon footprint will ultimately be taxed into oblivion.

As we have noted many times, there is zero concrete evidence of a causation relationship between carbon emissions and climate change.  All climate models used by scientists in the field to justify their global warming claims rely on data collected from the 1880s onward.  That's a tiny window of 140 years in the Earth's climate history and conveniently ignores long term data from before the advent of human industry.

When we examine Earth's temperatures over millions of years, it's easy to see that modern civilization exists in one of the coldest periods, not the warmest.  Numerous warming periods have occurred in the past with no human activity to cause the events.

And, if we look at the behavior of the carbon content of the Earth's atmosphere over this same time period, it's obvious that there is no correlation between rising carbon and rising temperatures.

In other words, the entire basis for carbon taxation has been debunked.  The only reason governments continue to push for emissions fees is because they know a large percentage of the population isn't aware of this information.  Government and NGO funded climate scientists continue to spread disinformation on global warming because they have access to billions upon billions of dollars in grant money if they promote the narrative.  The farce is simply far too lucrative to abandon.   

Update (1500ET): If ever there was a day which exposed the markets' sensitivity to China trade policy - it was today as an early rebuke by Trump was followed by threats of new sanctions and then an optimistic tone: “I’m sure that I’ll speak to President Xi and hopefully we’ll work that out,”

*  *  *

Update (1230ET): So much for the TACO trade...

Trump came out swinging early (as we detailed below) and has now followed up with an upper cut as Bloomberg reports, the Trump administration plans to broaden restrictions on China’s tech sector with new regulations to capture subsidiaries of companies under US curbs.

Officials are drafting a rule that would impose US government licensing requirements on transactions with companies that are majority-owned by already-sanctioned firms, according to people familiar with the matter.

The subsidiary rule — which applies a 50% ownership threshold in relation to companies on the Entity List, Military End-User list and Specially Designated Nationals list — could be unveiled as soon as June, said the people, who asked not to be named to discuss private deliberations.

The people emphasized that the contents and timing of the rule and related sanctions are not yet finalized and could still change.

After the rule is published, the US is likely to move forward with new sanctions on major Chinese companies, the people said.

So trade policy uncertainty is about to skyrocket again

The reaction in stocks was immediate... and lower...

NVDA has erased all of its post-earnings gains

*  *  *

Following earlier comments by TsySec Bessent that trade talks with China had "stalled", President Trump took to social media to explain his position:

Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger!

The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World.

We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them.

Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, "civil unrest."

I saw what was happening and didn’t like it, for them, not for us. I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn’t want to see that happen.

Because of this deal, everything quickly stabilized and China got back to business as usual.

Everybody was happy! That is the good news!!!

The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US. So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!

The reaction was swift - US equity futures dumped...

And crude crashed...

So much for 'TACO'! No more Mr Nice Guy does not sound like "chickening out".

Will PCE rescue the markets?

Authored by Maureen Steele via American Greatness,

President Trump’s new legislative centerpiece - the One Big Beautiful Bill - has a promising name and some compelling goals: reduce government bloat, streamline agencies, and modernize operations with cutting-edge technology.

But there’s a problem. A big one.

No one will tell us who’s programming the AI.

This sweeping bill includes a 10-year moratorium on any state or local government regulating artificial intelligence. According to The Washington Post and AP, more than 60 existing state-level laws will be overridden if this provision passes. All regulatory authority over AI—including systems that will be used in law enforcement, healthcare, defense, and finance—will be centralized in the federal government for a decade.

Even worse? The bill empowers the Department of Commerce to deploy “commercial AI” across virtually every federal agency—from the IRS to Homeland Security—according to Indian Express and The Verge.

And yet, no one in the White House or Congress has revealed who is writing the AI code, what datasets it’s trained on, whether it can be independently audited, or whether it’s bound by the U.S. Constitution.

This isn’t just a transparency issue. This is a constitutional crisis in the making.

To be clear, President Trump’s instincts here may be sound. We’ve long needed to shrink the federal leviathan and replace unconstitutional bureaucracies with systems that serve the people—not special interests.

But good intentions won’t protect us from unseen programmers, black-box algorithms, and unaccountable automation.

This bill mandates AI integration across government “to improve efficiency and security.” But efficiency isn’t liberty. Security isn’t sovereignty. And no AI—no matter how “smart”—should be allowed to rewrite, ignore, or reinterpret constitutional rights.

According to Business Insider, the AI moratorium’s stated goal is to “foster innovation” and avoid a “fragmented regulatory landscape.” In reality, it strips states of their authority to protect their citizens from deepfakes, algorithmic bias, digital censorship, and mass surveillance.

This is not governance. This is outsourced tyranny, hidden under the guise of modernization.

So let’s ask the question about what happens when AI is weaponized. If the systems being implemented were open source, transparent, built entirely on constitutional jurisprudence, and auditable by the public, we’d be having a very different conversation.

Instead, we’re facing a future where an algorithm may determine whether you’re eligible for services, a machine learning system may flag you as a “threat” based on your social media posts, and a black-box model may deny you a loan, reject your legal challenge, or freeze your bank account.

And you’ll never be told why.

You’ll never meet the person who made the decision—because there won’t be one.

And you won’t be able to sue.

Let’s not forget: AI is only as trustworthy as the data and ideology behind it. Who’s writing the rules? Google? Palantir? A Pentagon contractor? A committee of DEI officers? Are any of them being held to the Constitution?

The bill provides no clarity and no enforceable limits.

Many Americans have noticed that Trump, while visionary and bold, often surrounds himself with personnel who do not share his America First convictions.

Look no further than Susie Wiles—a long-time D.C. insider and lobbyist who acts as a gatekeeper to the former president. She’s known for blocking conservative constitutionalists from delivering vital information to Trump. The concern here is obvious: if Trump is not being properly briefed, then he may be backing legislation that completely contradicts the very values he’s trying to protect.

He’s been misled before, and this bill may be the worst example yet.

If AI is going to be deployed in government, then it must be open source—so the public can verify it—bound to the Constitution, not corporate code; audited regularly by independent, civilian-led review boards; and subject to judicial challenge if it infringes on rights.

Anything less is a betrayal of American sovereignty.

The One Big Beautiful Bill is not a harmless modernization measure. It is a potential gateway to technocratic control, where the power of law enforcement, taxation, and surveillance is handed over to machines we can’t see, question, or hold accountable.

Call your U.S. senators now. Demand: Removal of the AI moratorium. Clear constitutional guardrails and transparency, auditing, and public oversight of all AI code deployed in federal agencies.

Let them know: We are not giving the republic away to an algorithm.

This is the fight. If we lose this one, there may be no one left—human or otherwise—to fight the next.

*  *  *

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

President Donald Trump and Elon Musk are holding a press conference on Musk's last day as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

"I am having a Press Conference tomorrow at 1:30 P.M. EST, with Elon Musk, at the Oval Office. This will be his last day, but not really, because he will, always, be with us, helping all the way. Elon is terrific! See you tomorrow at the White House," Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Watch Live:

As the Epoch Times notes further, since Trump took office, Musk has led DOGE with the goal of identifying opportunities for spending and personnel cuts across the federal government amid record national debt. DOGE’s efforts have drawn criticism from Democrats and legal challenges.

Musk announced on May 28 that he planned on leaving the federal government as his 130-day term as a special government employee is ending.

“As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President @realDonaldTrump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending,” Musk said in a post on the social media platform X.

“The @DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.”

Musk has recently criticized the House-passed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, expressing his concerns over the budget deficit.

While the bill makes sweeping cuts to federal programs like the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps, and Medicaid—specifically through the imposition of more stringent income and work requirements, in addition to an increased financial burden on states to fund the entitlements—some officials have estimated that it could still negatively impact the deficit.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation could increase the deficit by $3.8 trillion over 10 years—prompting criticism from Musk and other budget hawks.

“I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing,” Musk said during an appearance on “CBS Sunday Morning.” “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both.”

Trump has been outspoken in his support of the package, personally working to sway conservative critics. After Musk’s comments, the president said on May 28 “I’m not happy about certain aspects of it, but I’m thrilled by other aspects of it.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has endorsed the package, saying it would be “jet fuel for the U.S. economy.”

In response to the DOGE-related concerns, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller said in a post on X that spending cuts recommended by DOGE could only be handled through a rescissions package or appropriations bill.

The White House on May 28 confirmed it would soon send Congress a $9.4 billion request to cut spending, wrapping in several of DOGE’s suggested cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Authored by Vance Ginn via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

California leads the nation in more ways than one—taxes, regulations, and, once again, gas prices. As of mid-May 2025, the average gasoline price in California is $4.85 per gallon, far above the national average of $3.26, according to GasBuddy and AAA.

And it’s getting worse. A March 2025 study by USC Professor Michael Mische forecasts California’s fuel prices could spike 75 percent to over $8 per gallon within the next year. That’s not hyperbole—that’s the trajectory unless policymakers reverse course.

The culprit? It’s not oil companies or global demand. It’s decades of state-level tax hikes, regulatory overreach, and misguided climate mandates that have warped the gasoline market in California. This is a man-made problem—a case study in government failure, not market failure.

What Really Drives Gas Prices

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), gasoline prices are generally shaped by five components: crude oil prices, refining costs, distribution and marketing, taxes, and regulations. In California, taxes and regulatory costs alone account for more than $1.30 per gallon—nearly double the national average.

California has the highest gas tax in the country, at $0.678 per gallon, not including additional fees and environmental surcharges. Add in the Cap-and-Trade program, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), and boutique fuel blends that are required only in California, and it becomes clear why Californians pay more.

And things are deteriorating further. The Mische study warns that with refinery closures due to hostile permitting processes and low expected returns under California’s climate mandates, fuel supply in the state could drop by 20 percent by 2026, even as demand stays relatively stable. Fewer refineries and rigid fuel standards will mean tighter supply and higher prices.

Texas vs. California: A Tale of Two Fuel Markets

To see how bad California’s policies are, look no further than Texas. As of May 2025, Texas drivers pay about $3.00 per gallon, nearly two dollars less than Californians. Texas levies a combined state gasoline tax of just $0.20 per gallon, and its regulatory structure is streamlined and energy-friendly.

Texas refineries aren’t subject to California’s carbon credit system or forced to produce costly special-blend fuels. And because it allows for a more competitive and open fuel market, the state benefits from both lower wholesale prices and more efficient distribution. The difference is stark—and instructive.

The Fallacy of ‘Green’ Fuel Mandates

Supporters of California’s approach claim high prices are a necessary cost for fighting climate change. But what if those policies aren’t actually working?

California’s greenhouse gas emissions have declined, but much of the reduction has come from cleaner electricity generation, not gasoline policies. Meanwhile, low-income and working-class Californians are being punished at the pump while driving older, less fuel-efficient vehicles.

This amounts to a regressive tax that hurts the very people politicians claim to protect. Worse, these rules don’t reduce global emissions—they just push energy production and refining out of the state and overseas, often to countries with weaker environmental standards.

The Economic Cost of Fragmented Fuel Policies

In my academic work, including a peer-reviewed paper and subsequent research (SSRN profile), I’ve documented how state-level fragmentation of fuel markets—through taxes, environmental programs, and infrastructure restrictions—creates costly inefficiencies that drive up prices.

These policies discourage new investment in refining and fuel transportation. They create artificial shortages. And they increase transaction costs that ultimately fall on consumers.

In short, California’s model is a textbook case of how overregulation and government micromanagement destroy affordability without delivering proportional benefits.

What Should Be Done Instead?

The answer isn’t new subsidies or “green” credits. It’s not banning gas-powered cars or rationing vehicle miles. The solution is to embrace free-market capitalism and the principles Milton Friedman championed: let prices reflect market conditions, not bureaucratic preferences.

That means:

• Repealing California’s Cap-and-Trade and LCFS programs.

• Standardizing fuel blends to match those used nationwide.

• Halting the gasoline tax increases scheduled under current law.

• Encouraging private investment in refining and fuel infrastructure.

The federal government could help by streamlining interstate pipeline permitting and revisiting federal environmental rules that duplicate or exacerbate state mandates. But the real change must come from Sacramento.

Conclusion: A Crisis of Policy, Not Price

California’s high gas prices aren’t the product of global volatility or greedy corporations. They’re the result of a long series of deliberate policy choices that make fuel harder to produce, harder to transport, and harder to afford.

When government picks winners and losers in energy markets, consumers lose. And when politicians mistake control for competence, they create systems that serve ideology rather than reality.

It’s time to abandon the myth that high gas prices are the price of progress. California has created a man-made fuel crisis—and only free-market reforms can solve it.

As Netanyahu threatens to upend U.S. talks with Iran by launching a unilateral strike himself — it’s unclear what the Trump admin plans to do and whether war is on the horizon. Last night, ZeroHedge hosted two category experts for a hawk-versus-dove showdown to answer what Trump should do. Negotiate or bomb? Who’s the aggressor: Iran or Israel?

Libertarian Institute founder Scott Horton lobbied for peace and outlined the long list of U.S. provocations that scarcely surface in western media. Israeli professor Dr. Meir Javedanfar warned of Iranian aggression and support for terrorism. Interestingly, they both agreed on one point: withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) was a mistake.

Here were the highlights for those short on time:

Iranian or Israeli/US aggression?

Javedanfar made a laundry list of Iranian acts of aggression and regarding their push for obtaining a nuke, including:

• Iran was caught secretly building the Natanz nuclear facility without informing the IAEA.
• Iran was again caught building a hidden enrichment facility at Fordo.
• Iran conducted research on a nuclear trigger mechanism at the Parchin site, including testing surrogate explosives.
• Documents retrieved by Mossad confirmed Iran’s intent to maintain a nuclear weapon development capability. 
• Killed 240 U.S. Marines in Beirut (1983 bombing).
• Took U.S. hostages and attacked the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
• Orchestrated the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia (1996), killing 19 U.S. servicemen.
• Planned a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. in 2011; plot was foiled by the CIA.

To which Horton replied point-by-point:

• U.S. and Western interventions (via USAID, NED, IRI, NDI, Soros orgs) aimed to provoke regime change in Iran, such as the 2009 Green Revolution, prompting Iran’s fear and secrecy.
• Natanz facility secrecy was due to Iran being blocked by the Nuclear Suppliers Group from purchasing legal nuclear technology, forcing it to buy from AQ Khan’s black market network.
• The discovery of Natanz was not initially by Israeli intelligence or the MEK, but by David Albright, an American nuclear expert.
• MEK (Mujahideen-e-Khalq), cited in claims of exposing Iran’s nuclear program, is described as a “communist terrorist cult” with a history of switching allegiances and spreading false intelligence.
• The claim about Iran developing nuclear triggers at Parchin is refuted:
  • The scientist involved was Igor Danchenko, an expert in nano-diamonds, not nuclear weapons.
  • There is no credible evidence linking him to nuclear weapons research.
• The 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) concluded that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program, largely due to the removal of Saddam Hussein, which eliminated Iran’s primary deterrent need.
• Israel itself engaged in nuclear espionage, including stealing Krytrons (nuclear triggers) from the U.S., highlighting hypocrisy in Israeli accusations. 
• The 1983 Beirut bombing:
  • Occurred 42 years ago and was carried out by proto-Hezbollah, not directly ordered by Tehran.
  • Israel was aware of the attack but didn’t warn the U.S., according to former Israeli spy Victor Ostrovsky.
• The Khobar Towers bombing (1996):
  • Attributed to al-Qaeda, not Iran. Specifically, Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were responsible.
  • CIA experts, including Michael Scheuer, and bin Laden himself, confirmed this.
• The 2011 Washington D.C. restaurant plot:
  • Dismissed as a hoax involving a used car salesman with no real ties to the Iranian regime.
  • The target was a minor diplomat, and the plot was more of a drug deal gone wrong than a genuine Iranian terror plot.

pic.twitter.com/ZBMsqxLji3

Neocon-Israeli alliance

“Acting directly as agents of the Israeli state.”

While Javedanfar dismissed the claims of Israeli influence in U.S. foreign policy as mere coincidental alignment of interests, Horton charged the neocon alliance that occupied the ranks of the George W Bush administration as essentially acting as foreign agents.

“The war could not have happened without the neocons acting as the vanguard for the Israeli state.”

pic.twitter.com/Qh1bEulAWJ

Be sure to check out the full debate here and subscribe to ZeroHedge Spotify, Rumble, and YouTube channels for more debates and for next week’s debut of our podcast hosted by comedian Rob Bernstein for weekly recaps on our most crucial articles.

FULL DEBATE:

https://t.co/AQNYQlsceN