Iran and the US have a peace deal? check (for 60 days, allegedly). 

Strait of Hormuz open? check (for 60 days, allegedly).

Ships transiting freely? check (not really)

Massive build up of Gulf oil desperate to reach Asian refiners? check.

All great news, which means that oil should now flow freely and in huge amounts, right?

Wrong: two of Asia’s largest refiners, PetroChina and Indian Oil, failed to secure very large crude carriers to lift Iraqi Basrah crude in late June, Reuters reported, while another Chinese major Sinochem is on the hunt for a ‌tanker.

The inquiries from the state energy firms followed an interim deal between the United States and Iran to end their war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. PetroChina had sought a VLCC (which can carry up to 2mm barrels) to load from Iraq’s Basrah Oil terminal between ​June 25 and 30. And while the Chinese major received at least six offers at worldscale ​points of 650 to 750, these rates were nearly triple those charged before the Iran war broke out in late February. The worldscale measure is used by the shipping industry to calculate freight rates.

“There are tankers available, but the problem is it’s too expensive and there is ​no guarantee you can exit the strait,” a PetroChina official said.

Indeed, a quick look at the latest gulf tanker rates shows that while not nearly as bad as when the war broke out, rates on tankers from the Gulf to various Asian destinations have doubled in the past weeks as buyers scramble to secure their shipments. Expect these prices to soar much higher in the coming days.

The punchline: securing supplies from the Gulf will remain complicated despite the peace deal, and not just due to the soaring tanker prices. 

“It’ll be ‌still ⁠difficult to fix a vessel due to the rate, and I assume that both parties need to agree to some special clause (in the contract for transiting the strait),” the source said.

On Thursday, another Chinese state major, Sinochem, sought a VLCC to load oil in the Gulf between June 20 and ​30 for Asia, ​the shipping sources said. ⁠It was not immediately clear if the company would succeed in finding a vessel.

Remarkably, as this was taking place, India’s giant oil company IOC did not receive any offers in a tender ​last week ⁠seeking a VLCC to lift oil from Iraq on June 22 and 23 and deliver to Paradip port on India’s east coast, a Reuters source said.

IOC, India’s largest ⁠refiner, subsequently ​issued a force majeure on the cargo. 

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

The Los Angeles City Council voted 10-5 to advance a controversial proposal that would allow noncitizens to vote in local elections, including mayoral, city council and school board races.

The New York Post reports that the proposal is part of a sweeping charter reform package headed for the November ballot.

🚨 LA City Council Advances Proposal on Noncitizen Voting for November Ballot

Los Angeles City Council has moved forward on a measure from Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez (AI video) that would allow the city to consider noncitizen voting in certain local elections — including… pic.twitter.com/SS7ho6Jskn

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) June 18, 2026

The proposal to allow noncitizens to vote was proposed by Councilman Hugo Soto-Martínez who argues that noncitizens who live, work, pay taxes and raise families in Los Angeles should have a voice in local affairs.

Soto-Martinez said:

 “I believe it’s a simple principle that should guide us: If you live in the city, contribute to the city, raise your family in the city, and are impacted by the decisions made in the city, you deserve to have a voice in the city.”

“It just does not make sense to me that someone who moves to Los Angeles for a temporary job has more of a voice than a parent who has been here for decades raising their children through public schools,” Soto-Martinez added.

Opponents warn that the proposal is moving forward before city leaders know whether it can actually be implemented.

Councilwoman Monica Rodriguez raised questions as to how Los Angeles could create a noncitizen voting program when the city’s elections are administered by Los Angeles County.

Rodriguez warned that city leaders may be making promises they cannot keep, saying, “I have apprehension of making false promises that give the suggestion that we’re able to advance something without even further vetting the ability to implement this. I don’t want to pretend that people are going to take away from this that this is going to be available to them, and it’s not, because it’s not been baked out.”

The noncitizen voting measure was part of a package of proposed city charter changes that will be placed before voters on the November 3rd ballot, including a measure that would allow the council to set policy at Los Angeles Police Department.

The City Attorney will now draft language for the proposed ballot measures, which must then be approved by the City Council before going before voters.

The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government’s prosecution of a Texas man under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3) – the provision barring “unlawful user[s] of” or those “addicted to” any controlled substance from possessing firearms – violated the Second Amendment.

The case, United States v. Hemani, stemmed from an August 2022 FBI search of the family home of Ali Danial Hemani, a dual U.S.-Pakistan citizen who was born in Texas and had a stable job as a project manager at a Dallas-area insurance company. The government suspected Hemani and his family members of activities related to terrorism. During the search, Hemani was cooperative: he surrendered a Glock 9mm pistol he kept in the house, pointed agents to marijuana on the property, and consented to an interview in which he admitted using marijuana about every other day. Agents also found cocaine in his parents’ closet; Hemani claimed ownership but stated his mother had hidden it from him and that he had not used any recently.

More than six months later, the government indicted Hemani on a single count, relying solely on his admitted marijuana use and possession of the gun in his home. The indictment did not allege terrorism, drug trafficking, cocaine possession as a basis for the charge, or that Hemani was intoxicated or dangerous at the time he possessed the firearm. He faced up to 15 years in prison and lifetime disarmament.

Hemani fought it in court – arguing the prosecution violated the Second Amendment under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). The district court agreed and dismissed the indictment; the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The government sought certiorari, which the Court granted.

The Court’s Holding And Reasoning

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the Court (joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson), affirmed the dismissal – and said that Hemani’s conduct was presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

The government’s argument was a stretch – citing “habitual drunkard” laws which targeted people who “regularly use intoxicants” for public-safety reasons and operated similarly by restricting liberties. 

The Court completely shot that down; agreeing that a “habitual drunkard” generally meant someone intoxicated “to such a degree as to deprive him of his ordinary reasoning faculties” or “incapable of conducting [his] own affairs,” “mentally incompetent,” or who had “lost the power of self-control.” Early American statutes and cases required practical incapacitation. Given the era’s “culture of copious drinking” (notable Founders consumed significant amounts daily or at events without being labeled habitual drunkards), the law specifically applied to people too lost in the sauce to function – not regular users. By contrast, the government’s interpretation automatically disarms anyone who regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance for a non-prescribed purpose, without showing incapacitation or danger. The Supremes said that this was “difficult to square with the historical record.”

Doubts about the government’s claimed purpose: Even setting aside the historical mismatches, the Court questioned whether §922(g)(3) as construed even serves to disarm “categorically violent and unusually dangerous” persons. It incorporates the Controlled Substances Act’s broad health-and-welfare criteria (not limited to violence risk), and the government’s own recent actions – DOJ guidance curtailing marijuana prosecutions, moving some marijuana products from Schedule I to III, widespread state legalization, and data suggesting more adults now report daily/near-daily marijuana use than alcohol – undercut the claim that all regular users are inherently dangerous. Affording the government “broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun” would risk swallowing the Second Amendment.

The decision is deliberately narrow. It does not:

• Address efforts to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing firearms.
• Invalidate other prophylactic laws Congress might enact for users of particular drugs shown to pose special firearm-misuse risks.
• Touch §922(g)(1)’s felony-disarmament provision.
• Decide whether the government could prevail with individualized proof that a defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a specific drug always renders its users dangerous.

It simply holds that the government’s broad argument – applied to a cooperative individual whose regular but non-incapacitating marijuana use was the sole basis for prosecution – is inconsistent with the Second Amendment’s historical tradition.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Hemani is a significant victory for the Second Amendment and a major rebuke of the federal government’s attempt to turn peaceable Americans into prohibited persons without any evidence that they are dangerous,” Erich Pratt, Senior VP of Gun Owners of America said in a statement to ZeroHedge. “Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the Court to look past the government’s handpicked plaintiff and to focus on the core Second Amendment issue – and thankfully, the Court did exactly that. This ruling sends a clear message: the Department of Justice cannot continue ignoring the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment in order to defend gun control laws. It is long past time for the DOJ to stop carrying water for anti-gun policies and start defending the constitutional rights of the American people.”

S&P 500 and Nasdaq remain near record highs despite yesterday’s post-Fed freakout. Risk-on is still in fashion as investors remain hopeful of a lasting U.S.-Iran peace. Though the question remains: Is the rally sustainable or are markets poised for a painful reversal before year-end?

Tonight at 7pm ET, Adam Taggart of Thoughtful Money hosts a debate between two of Wall Street’s closely followed technical strategists: Jonathan Krinsky, Chief Market Technician at BTIG, and Mark Newton, Head of Technical Strategy at Fundstrat.

Bull Case (Newton):

Newton sees the upward trend in tech/AI continuing higher, which will lift the broader market into 2027… even if there’s a little chop.

While he expects periods of volatility and some consolidation, easing energy prices and continued investment in artificial intelligence infrastructure will support further gains into year-end, even in the already-lofty tech/AI trade. With oil retreating sharply from wartime highs and investors increasingly focused on the long-term productivity benefits of AI (economic benefits that are real and not merely a bubble), Newton sees pullbacks as opportunities.

Oil was sent sharply lower on the news of a ceasefire, something Newton sees continuing into year end in the broader energy sector:

Energy could be a “source of real underperformance” in the months ahead.@MarkNewtonCMT of @Fundstrat tells @RemyBlaireNews healthcare and financials are his top picks, with $NKE “starting to finally show some evidence of rallying.” pic.twitter.com/p2C988c584

— FINTECH.TV (@FINTECHTVglobal) June 15, 2026

Bear Case (Krinsky):

Krinsky has maintained a more cautious stance as equities push further into historically stretched territory.

While the recent peace agreement between the U.S. and Iran has boosted risk appetite and eased inflation concerns, Krinsky has argued recently that elevated valuations, particularly in tech, are due for a correction at some point… especially with a seemingly hawkish fed. Krinsky has also pointed to the recent decoupling of bond yields and oil prices, having risen in tandem until post-peace deal where yields continued rising (possibly Fed-related) while oil tanked.

Recent gains have been driven largely by AI-related technology shares, semiconductors, and the Magnificent Seven, while many other areas of the market have failed to keep pace. Both Newton and Krinsky agree on this, though only one sees it as fuel to further propel markets higher… the other sees a ticking time bomb.

Both panelists rely on technicals and regularly change their market outlooks based on data. Neither guest is a perma-bull or bear… so no broken clocks tonight.

Tune in tonight at 7pm ET on the ZH homepage, X Feed, and Youtube channel to watch live to see how they’re looking at Iran, Fed chair Warsh, and markets.

Authored by Micah Zimmermann via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The Federal Reserve proposed Thursday that payment stablecoin issuers maintain written customer identification programs, a move that signals Washington’s determination to bring digital asset markets under the same anti-money laundering discipline long applied to traditional banks — even as regulators race to finalize rules before a statutory deadline this coming January.

The proposal would require so-called permitted payment stablecoin issuers, or PPSIs, to collect from each new customer a legal name, date of birth or formation, physical address, and a government-issued identification number before opening an account. 

The Federal Reserve framework mirrors CIP obligations that banks, broker-dealers, mutual funds, and futures commission merchants have operated under for more than two decades. Regulators will take public feedback on the proposal for 60 days.

The Federal Reserve’s action follows a wave of rulemaking set in motion by the Genius Act — formally, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act — which President Trump signed into law in July 2025.

That landmark legislation created the first federal regulatory system for stablecoins, mandating 100% reserve backing with liquid assets and subjecting issuers to the Bank Secrecy Act for the first time. 

The statute requires stablecoin issuers to establish effective anti-money laundering, sanctions compliance, and customer identification programs. The Genius Act becomes effective on the earlier of January 18, 2027, or 120 days after primary federal regulators issue their final implementing rules.

Federal Reserve Governor cautions towards stablecoins

Federal Reserve Governor Michael Barr has emerged as the most vocal voice of caution within the regulatory apparatus, even as his colleagues have embraced digital assets with new openness. Speaking in March at a Federalist Society conference in Washington, Barr warned that stablecoins face material risks around reserve asset quality, regulatory arbitrage, anti-money laundering gaps, and financial stability — concerns he argued the Genius Act’s primary text does not resolve on its own. 

“While some digital asset service providers are subject to anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing requirements in their home jurisdiction, it is far too easy for bad actors to evade these restrictions and operate without detection when transacting in digital assets,” Barr said in a statement Thursday. 

Barr, who previously served as the Federal Reserve’s top bank cop, contends that detailed rulemaking remains the critical instrument for translating the statute’s intent into enforceable protections.

Thursday’s proposal is the latest in a dense sequence of rulemakings from multiple agencies. In April 2026, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Office of Foreign Assets Control issued a joint proposed rule requiring PPSIs to adopt written AML and countering-the-financing-of-terrorism programs and a full sanctions compliance framework. 

That rule would carve PPSIs out of the existing money services business category and treat them as a distinct class of BSA-covered financial institutions — a significant structural change, given FinCEN’s finding that roughly half of known stablecoin issuers have not registered as MSBs at all. 

The FDIC and OCC each issued their own notices of proposed rulemaking in parallel, covering licensing, reserves, capital requirements, and redemption standards. The CIP proposal announced Thursday is a separate, complementary rulemaking to those AML and sanctions rules.

Stablecoin rules and nuance

The proposed customer identification requirements carry technical nuance tailored to stablecoin markets. Unlike banks, a PPSI can face demands for direct redemption from token holders who acquired coins on the secondary market rather than through a direct issuance relationship. 

The proposal addresses this by defining an “account” to include that redemption event, meaning an individual who acquires a stablecoin on an exchange and later redeems it directly with the issuer would trigger CIP obligations at the moment of that interaction. 

Purely secondary market transactions in which the PPSI is not a direct counterparty — including transfers conducted via smart contract — would not constitute an account relationship under the proposed framework.

The timeline for finalization is tight. With the Genius Act’s effective date potentially arriving as early as 120 days after the agencies publish their final rules, the window for comment, revision, and adoption is compressed. Final CIP rules are not expected before 2027, which means the statute could take effect before its customer identification architecture is fully in place. 

Take-Two Interactive Software shares jumped early in the cash session after the company announced on X that pre-orders for Grand Theft Auto VI will open next Thursday. The move is easing investor concerns that the highly anticipated game could face another delay, reinforcing expectations that Rockstar Games remains on track for its Nov. 19 launch date.

“Pre-orders for Grand Theft Auto VI will officially begin on June 25 on digital storefronts and at other select retailers,” Rockstar Games wrote on X. The gaming studio is a wholly owned subsidiary of Take-Two.

Pre-orders for Grand Theft Auto VI will officially begin on June 25 on digital storefronts and at other select retailers.

Check out the official cover art, also available as downloadable artwork at https://t.co/XPwC8URCQ4 pic.twitter.com/pRVXk4eyDQ

— Rockstar Games (@RockstarGames) June 18, 2026

The last major GTA release was GTA V, which launched on Sept. 17, 2013. Gamers have been waiting 13 years for a major GTA installment.

Rockstar has upset not just Take-Two investors but also GTA gamers on numerous occasions, indicating that its developers needed more time to finish the game, thereby delaying the launch. The launch date is set for Nov. 19.

Rockstar just gave us the best look yet at non-enterable buildings in GTA VI

It’s not a straight up png like in GTA V and other open world games with skyscrapers but at the same time, it doesn’t have anywhere near the detail as the rest of the game. What I’m really curious about… https://t.co/Q5ko9Gpawz pic.twitter.com/kVQTiGZ4VR

— Farzam (@farzam_plays) June 18, 2026

Take-Two shares are up nearly 6% in the cash session, though the stock has traded mostly sideways since peaking around $262 in October 2025.

Last month, we asked:

• Is Take-Two Sandbagging Guidance Ahead Of Grand Theft Auto VI Launch?

BMO Capital Markets analyst Brian Pitz noted, “We highlight that the game’s price remains a key question, as the launch of preorders next Friday should confirm base game pricing. We will also closely monitor for any higher-priced SKUs that give players early access to the game. Reiterate our Outperform, Top Pick, and $280 target price.”

According to Bloomberg data, 97% of the analyst coverage on TWWO is “Buy” rated with an average 12-month price target of $281.97.

For reference, GTA V sold about 225 million to 230 million copies worldwide.

There is already a report from Oppenheimer analyst Martin Yang that console sales are increasing ahead of the GTA VI release.