Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

There are plenty of comments about the death of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. These tend to appear when the dollar index declines. However, these “dollar death” reports are greatly exaggerated and fail to answer a simple question: What is the alternative?

If you want to bet on the euro as a global reserve currency ahead of the imposition of the digital euro, which will obliterate all limits to central bank surveillance and excess, be my guest.

Furthermore, the enormous military spending and public expenditure plans that have been announced in 2025 add to the giant committed unfunded liabilities of member states, moving from 350% in the case of Germany to 500% of GDP in the case of Spain.

The Chinese yuan is only used in 4.5% of global transactions. With capital controls, exchange rate fixing and significant legal and investor insecurity due to government control of institutions, it is difficult to believe that China’s yuan will be an alternative to the US dollar. Additionally, I do not believe that the Chinese government wants to eliminate those barriers and, as such, has no desire to be a world reserve currency. This is a similar problem with the currency of Brazil, Russia, India, or South Africa. Would you accept your salary and savings in a currency issued by countries with capital controls as well as significant legal and investor security challenges?

Gold and bitcoin are reserve-value alternatives to fiat currencies for investors but cannot replace the US dollar due to the low liquidity and supply.

Currently, we are observing a decline in the value of the dollar as investors take on more risk, following the euro’s collapse to nearly parity in 2024 and the yen’s drop to 40-year lows against the US dollar. This is driven by the Federal Reserve’s stubborn rate policy.

How is the Fed responsible for a weaker dollar?

For international investors, buying US treasuries can be uneconomical due to the large hedging costs created by elevated US rates. At the same time, rates are plummeting in Europe, making it more reasonable to purchase European assets and debt despite the weak fundamentals and solvency. Fearing a non-existent inflation burst, the Fed is engineering a dollar decline by maintaining high rates.

One can criticise tariffs for a variety of reasons, but they don’t trigger inflation. Tariffs do not create more units of currency in the system and do not drive higher monetary velocity. What causes inflation is government spending and money printing. Furthermore, those that fear tariff impacts on prices never consider the elevated levels of overcapacity in the export world, the complexity of supply chains, or the working capital challenges created by not exporting to the United States.

Even with all the negative headlines and the Fed’s negative impact, the US dollar index is significantly above where it was in 2009-2018 and is only reflecting a short bounce of the euro and yen (73% of the index).

The dollar index (DXY) is at 98.5 at the close of July 18th. The DXY averaged approximately 93.15 during Obama’s presidency and 100.0 through Biden’s tenure. Furthermore, the Broad Trade-Weighted Dollar Index is at 120.35. It averaged 98 during Obama and 118 with Biden. It is hard to call the current level “a collapse”.

Higher US rates and carry trade bets are driving a typical risk-on bounce.

A set of structural, institutional, and market realities support the dollar’s dominance, despite frequent calls for de-dollarization or speculation about emerging alternatives.

1. Deep and Liquid Financial Markets

• The United States boasts the largest, most transparent and most liquid capital market in the world.
• US Treasuries continue to be the main reserve asset for central banks worldwide, followed by gold. If there is anything we have seen, it is the decline of the euro as a central bank reserve asset, according to the latest Bloomberg figures.
• In 2025, nearly 90% of all global foreign exchange transactions involved the US dollar, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

2. Trusted Legal and Institutional Frameworks

• A transparent legal system, strong property rights, and independent institutions attract global investors and underpin confidence in the dollar.
• The dollar’s supremacy requires more than economic size; it depends on the trust that legal and political checks and balances will endure.

3. Global Trade and The Network Effect

• The dollar is used in about 54% of global export invoicing—far ahead of other major currencies. The euro stands at about 30%, while the Chinese yuan is at just 4%.
• Entire commodity markets—including oil—are dollarised, and over 48% of global SWIFT payments settle in dollars, compared to the yuan’s 4.5%. Think about this: not even the Chinese or Russian oil companies use local currency for all their activities.

To be a world reserve currency, alternatives must have open markets, full capital account convertibility, legal transparency, and sizable, investable assets. There is no alternative to the US dollar with these criteria. The euro faces redenomination risk and the imposition of the central bank digital euro and lacks a truly unified fiscal policy. The Chinese yuan is constricted by capital controls, state intervention, and a less open legal system.

The US dollar’s status as a world reserve currency remains because there is no fiat alternative. Gold and Bitcoin may be investment options, but they do not fulfil the functions or trust needed at a global level.

The only risk for the United States is that all the benefits of having the world reserve currency become enormous liabilities if confidence is lost due to fiscal indiscipline. However, the fiat world is not about who wins but who loses first.

No fiat currency can be an alternative to the US dollar if the government is more fiscally imprudent, institutions are less independent and capital markets less open than in the United States.

What saves the US dollar from losing its status as a world reserve currency is that the fiscal, legal and economic situation of the alleged alternatives is even worse.

The U.S. dollar remains the world reserve currency because it has no contenders. This is not because the government and Federal Reserve policies are always sound, but because others are much worse. The greatest threat to the dollar’s dominance is internal: fiscal and trade deficits and political dysfunction. Yet, unless and until another currency can match the US dollar’s unparalleled combination of depth, trust, liquidity, and legal robustness, the dollar’s primacy endures. You cannot dethrone the US dollar by being worse than the king.

It is sad, but true. The dollar’s biggest strength is the atrocious monetary, legal and fiscal irresponsibility of its alternatives.

Just hours after Children’s Hospital Los Angeles halted the use of Sarepta Therapeutics’ Elevidys, the pharma company announced late Monday that it will temporarily suspend all shipments of the gene therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. The move follows three reported deaths linked to the treatment.

“This proactive step will allow Sarepta the necessary time to respond to any requests for information and allow Sarepta and FDA to complete the ELEVIDYS safety labeling supplement process,” Sarepta wrote in a press release, adding, “The Company looks forward to a collaborative, science-driven review process and dialogue with the FDA.” 

Sarepta CEO Doug Ingram stated, “The decision to voluntarily and temporarily pause shipments of ELEVIDYS was a painful one, as individuals with Duchenne are losing muscle daily and in need of disease-modifying options.” 

“It is important for the patients we serve that Sarepta maintains a productive and positive working relationship with FDA, and it became obvious that maintaining that productive working relationship required this temporary suspension while we address any questions that FDA may have and complete the ELEVIDYS label supplement process,” Ingram said. 

In pre-market trading, shares fell another 4%, compounding yesterday’s 5.36% loss. Year-to-date, the stock is down a staggering 89%, trading at lows not seen since 2015.

On Monday, HC Wainwright & Co. analyst Mitchell S. Kapoor made the rare move of slashing Sarepta’s price target to zero—from a prior target of $10—while maintaining a sell rating. According to the latest Bloomberg data, there are three sell ratings, 17 holds, and six buys on the stock. The average 12-month price target among Wall Street analysts is $28.32. 

Barclays analyst Gena Wang said her desk is stepping to the sidelines due to ongoing regulatory uncertainties, citing “numerous twists and turns” from both the FDA and Sarepta following the death of a third patient. She set a 12-month price target of $18, implying a 35% upside from the last close. 

The FDA first asked Sarepta to halt shipments of Elevidys on Friday, following news reports of a third patient death in a clinical trial. The pharma company initially refused, sparking backlash. 

Related:

• Sarepta Crashes After Second Death On Gene Therapy Drug

• FDA To Halt Sarepta’s Gene Therapy Drug Shipments Over Deaths

• Sarepta Price Target Slashed To $0 At H.C. Wainwright As Stock Plunge Continues

• Sarepta Plunges Again After Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Halts Use Of Elevidys Gene Therapy

Thanks for playing in the Wall Street casino. 

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The UK closed a tax loophole. Guess what. NYC can expect the same.

Extreme Wealthy Flee the UK

The Wall Street Journal reports The U.K. Closed a Tax Loophole for the Global Rich. Now They’re Fleeing.

The U.K. is trying to tax the superrich. It’s off to a bumpy start.

“I’m on my way out,” said Bassim Haidar, a Nigerian-born Lebanese businessman who moved here in 2010. “There comes a time when you don’t feel welcome anymore, and it’s time to just start packing and leaving.”

Haidar is one of the estimated 74,000 who used a centuries-old tax loophole, abolished in April, that catered to the global rich. The nondomiciled—or non-dom status, as it is known—allowed foreigners living in the U.K. to pay tax only on what they earned domestically. Profits made abroad were ignored unless brought into the U.K.

Beset by high public debt and crumbling infrastructure, the U.K. hoped eliminating non-doms would bring in about $45 billion by 2030. But instead of paying up, wealthy expats are rushing for the exits, sparking questions about whether the effort will raise any money at all.

The British experiment has laid bare the difficult politics of taxing the rich. Taxing high earners has become a rallying cry on the left as a solution to income inequality and fraying social-safety nets. Low-tax advocates say taxes on the wealthy are counterproductive, driving away job creators and big spenders.

One challenge of taxing the wealthy is that they are highly mobile, with houses around the world, private jets and an army of advisers who can sort out visas and bureaucratic paperwork quickly. Jurisdictions such as Dubai, Italy and Monaco have rolled out the red carpet, offering no taxation or structures similar to the U.K.’s old non-dom status.

Haidar is selling his U.K. properties and plans to leave this summer. He’ll split his time between Dubai and Greece.

Wealthy Britons have been trying to escape the U.K.’s high tax rates for decades. In the 1970s, the Rolling Stones moved to France to avoid taxes, while David Bowie went to Switzerland.

The lucrative non-dom loophole had the opposite effect, drawing rich foreigners to London. 

The U.K. always knew that some rich residents would leave because of the tax changes and built that into its forecasts. The U.K.’s independent budget watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, estimated that among a large subset of non-doms, around 12% will move. But it warned this month that departures could be higher and said the U.K.’s “growing reliance on this small and mobile group of taxpayers therefore represents a fiscal risk.”

A report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, commissioned by the Land of Opportunity campaign, forecast that a higher share of non-doms would leave and suggested the government could lose money if the migration rate tops 25%.

Campaign Platform of Democrat Zohran Mamdani

In New York City, here is the campaign platform of Democrat Zohran Mamdani

• Freeze rent

• Create affordable, union-built, rent-stabilized homes – constructing 200,000 new units over the next 10 years.

• Create a network of city-owned grocery stores

• Free bus transportation

• Free childcare for every New Yorker aged 6 weeks to 5 years, ensuring high quality programming for all families.

• Wages for childcare workers to be at parity with public school teachers. 

• New York City will renovate 500 public schools with renewable energy infrastructure and HVAC upgrades, transform 500 asphalt schoolyards into vibrant green spaces, create 15,000 union jobs, and build resilience hubs in 50 schools that provide resources and safe spaces during emergencies.

• The Mamdani administration will protect LGBTQIA+ New Yorkers by expanding and protecting gender-affirming care citywide, making NYC an LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city, and creating the Office of LGBTQIA+ Affairs. He’ll make NYC an LGBTQIA+ sanctuary city and protect reproductive rights. 

• As Mayor, Zohran will reject Medicare Advantage, and reject higher copays for inservice workers. 

• As Mayor, Zohran will champion a new local law bringing the NYC wage floor up to $30/hour by 2030.

How Will Zohran Pay for the Above?

•  Zohran’s revenue plan will raise the corporate tax rate to match New Jersey’s 11.5%, bringing in $5 billion

• He will tax the wealthiest 1% of New Yorkers—those earning above $1 million annually—a flat 2% tax (right now city income tax rates are essentially the same whether you make $50,000 or $50 million).

Prisons Are Obsolete

Zohran Mamdani on abolishing prisons and jail: “What purpose do they serve, besides making people feel good?” pic.twitter.com/KYgD1nRP8U

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 17, 2025

Abolition of Private Property

Zohran Mamdani says he’d be in favor of the “abolition of private property” pic.twitter.com/WRs6JEG5tv

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) July 17, 2025

Gender Affirming Care

Zohran Mamdani pledges $65 million for Gender Sex Changes, otherwise known as “Gender Affirming Care”

Again… the dude just became a US Citizen in 2018 and wants to..

– defund police
– legalize prostitution
– legalize drugs
– decriminalize crimes
– mutilate children
– take… pic.twitter.com/3H9ZFum9qY

— Not A Number (@myhiddenvalue) June 29, 2025

Defund the Police

Politifact: “There’s no evidence Zohran Mamdani wants to defund the police. We rate the claim as false.” pic.twitter.com/aPLLJE2wNW

— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) July 7, 2025

Mamdani now says he does not support defunding the police.

Don’t believe the MAGA billionaires funding Andrew Cuomo’s fear-driven campaign: I will not defund the police.

I will let them do their actual jobs by investing in social and mental health workers, and pursuing evidence-based policies that deliver safety. pic.twitter.com/vcSOKuZYDA

— Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@ZohranKMamdani) June 13, 2025

Wait a Second

This is the same Zohran Mamdani who said he would defund the police by $1 billion.

Zohran wants law enforcement protection for himself but not for New Yorkers. https://t.co/pbGboMNTiS pic.twitter.com/f1rlopCHqM

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 17, 2025

He now does not want to “defund” the police. He just wants yo cut $1 billion out of a $6 billion budget.

A Pathetic List of Candidates

The New York Times addresses the question Who’s Running for Mayor of New York City?

• Zohran Mamdani is a state assemblyman and democratic socialist who stunned the political establishment with his victory in the Democratic primary.

• Curtis Sliwa, a Republican, lost the general election to Mr. Adams in 2021. He is running for the Republican nomination again.

• Eric Adams ran for mayor in 2021 as a former police officer who vowed to bring down crime, and his message four years later is similar. But he faces many challenges. He was indicted on federal corruption charges that were later dismissed by the Trump administration; his administration has been plagued by investigations and high-profile resignations; his approval rating is at record lows.

• Andrew Cuomo was elected to three terms as governor and resigned in 2021 after roughly a dozen women accused him of sexual harassment. He also faced criticism for his handling of nursing home deaths during the pandemic.

• Jim Walden, a former federal prosecutor who has handled high-profile cases, is running as an independent.

What a pathetic lot.

Sliwa, a Republican, has no chance and he won’t back out. That’s likely irrelevant.

However, three candidates running as independents is relevant. If they all stay in, they will split the vote ending what little chance they did have.

It’s even worse than I thought looking at the Platform of Jim Walden

To tackle affordability, he’s pledged $1 billion a year in rent relief for the city’s most rent-burdened tenants, funded immediately by cutting ineffective programs and using the city’s budget surplus, and in the future, by instituting a 0.75% “micro-tax” on goods and services, which he said would raise an estimated $60 billion over four years. Walden said the tax is small enough that it won’t cause companies to alter their business decisions. He would need state approval for the tax.

He also wants to create a contract-based rent-stabilization program to incentive more affordable housing.

Pretty Much Over

Marxist Zohran Mamdani wants to defund the police

He wants to forcibly “seize the means of production”

He wants to tax whiter neighborhoods to pay for everyone else

He defends the violent phrase “Globalize the Intifada”

This man is TOO dangerous for America. @PiersUncensored pic.twitter.com/pQJn1VCeei

— Lindy Li (@lindyli) June 30, 2025

Mish Proposal

Given that anyone would be better than Zohran Mamdani, I suggest Andrew Cuomo, Eric Adams, and Jim Walden agree to pulling a single name out of the hat to run as the independent.

Otherwise, and perhaps anyway, a Marxist will be running New York City.

Via Remix news,

New polling shows that Germans are firmly against a ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), with one historian even warning in the wake of the results that a ban of the AfD would lead to a civil war.

The poll, which was conducted by the prestigious Allensbach Institute for Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), is sure to come as a shock for the liberal wing of the German elite promoting a ban of the party.

It shows that 52 percent of Germans are against a ban of the AfD, while only 27 percent are in favor. Among East Germans, two-thirds are opposed to a ban, while in the West, 49 percent are opposed to a ban.

There are now even warnings that a ban could lead to a civil war, and not from an AfD politician.
CDU member and historian Andreas Rödder told Euronews that an AfD ban represents a serious threat.

“A ban procedure that leads to the loss of all votes for the AfD and thus to red-red-green parliamentary majorities across the board would be the sure path to civil war,” he warned.

The Allensbach poll results also come despite a concerted media and government spy campaign to demonize the party. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) has already labeled the AfD as having “right-wing extremist elements.” In some German states, the AfD is “confirmed right-wing extremist.”

https://twitter.com/RMXnews/status/1896593653105094693

One of the main reasons why Germans are against an AfD ban is that many Germans know an AfD supporter in their social circle. The poll shows that 67 percent of West Germans say they know an AfD supporter, and 88 percent of East Germans say they know an AfD supporter. These acquaintances are viewed differently from the party itself. While 54 percent of Germans believe the AfD is right-wing extremist, only 5 percent believe their AfD supporter friends and family are also right-wing extremist.

Another reason is that many Germans view the banning of the AfD as anti-democratic. They hold the belief that parties advocating for a ban are looking to eliminate the political opposition.

In fact, these were the words of the chancellor of Germany, with Friedrich Merz stating that efforts to ban the AfD are essentially undemocratic.

Speaking to Die Zeit in May, Merz said, “Working ‘aggressively and militantly’ against the free democratic basic order must be proven. And the burden of proof lies solely with the state. That is a classic task of the executive branch. And I have always internally resisted initiating ban proceedings from within the Bundestag. That smacks too much of political competition elimination to me.”

The poll also shows that banning the party in Germany would not solve the country’s political problems, with 54 percent saying that the AfD party would just reform under a different name with the same ideology.

However, the poll results are not deterring the left. In fact, they may only serve to hasten the left’s anti-democratic efforts as the AfD grows in popularity. A number of recent polls show the AfD is supported by 25 percent of the population, including a YouGov poll from last week.

Minister President of Rhineland-Palatinate Alexander Schweitzer (SPD) said he remains in favor of preparing a ban procedure against the AfD. 

He told Welt am Sonntag, “I’m for preparing ban proceedings against the AfD, and I am against quick fixes, so I hope that it is well prepared and not set in motion too quickly.”

He emphasized that “our state must be able to defend itself against those who want to abolish it,” and that AfD approval ratings are not an argument against a ban, but rather about “consolidating and protecting our democracy. You can’t say there are many, so we’d rather leave it alone.”

So far, the CDU, the SPD’s coalition partner, is against the ban. In fact, the CDU may have good reason to be against such a dramatic move. For one thing, with the AfD eliminated, the left will then set its sights on the CDU, potentially even labeling the CDU the “new right.” Furthermore, the CDU may want to leave the door open to future cooperation with the AfD, or at least keep the threat open against left-wing parties like the SPD, which helps the CDU drive its own agenda.

Read more here…

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Prescription drugs provide relief from pain, fight infection, stabilize moods, reduce inflammation, combat dread diseases, and extend lives.

These medications have become a fact of life for many—perhaps most—Americans. On average, half of them took at least one prescription drug in a given month, according to a recent CDC survey. More than 13 percent took five or more.

And the rate is growing.

In 2020 Americans filled 6.4 billion prescriptions, about 19 per person.

By 2023, Americans were consuming more than 210 billion daily doses of medication annually. That’s more than 600 pills, shots, drops, IVs, creams, mists, or suppositories for every person in the country.

A child born in 2019 in the United States can expect to spend roughly half of his or her life taking prescription medications, according to Jessica Y. Ho, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University.

The United States consumes more prescription drugs than any country in the world and spends nearly twice as much for them as all other nations combined.

Big Business

Global pharmaceutical sales were estimated at $1.6 trillion in 2023, according to Statista. That’s roughly equal to the  gross domestic product of Spain and nearly double that of Switzerland.

The ten largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States alone have a combined worth of more than $2.1 trillion.

Recent growth in the industry has been driven by the creation of new types of medications including biologics and peptides. These medications can be highly effective but also very expensive.

Biologics are drugs derived from living sources rather than chemicals. Medicare paid nearly $66,000 per patient for prescriptions of Humira in 2023. That’s a biologic medication to treat rheumatoid arthritis, plaque psoriasis, and other diseases.

Development of biologics has more than tripled over the last decade. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 17 biologics in 2023, up from an average of 4 per year between 1999 and 2013.

Americans consumed 72 percent of the top 50 biologic drugs sold in the world in 2022, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Peptides are drugs that mimic the function of certain substances within the human body.

A particular type of peptide called GLP-1 helps regulate blood sugar and appetite. Ozempic, Weygovy, and Trulicity are GLP-1 medications.

Medicare Part D alone paid more than $22 billion to provide GLP-1 medications in 2023, an increase of nearly 130 percent in two years.

Currently, the GLP-1 market is dominated by Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Sanofi, though others are working to develop similar medications.

U.S. drug prices were more than double those in other countries as of 2022, and more than 4 times as much for brand-name drugs, according to global consulting firm RAND.

Political Spending

Pharmaceutical companies do considerable business with the federal government, deriving $387 billion in payments from Medicare Part D and Medicaid in 2023 alone.

Pharmaceutical companies and some 100 allied political action committees spent more than $15 million in campaign contributions during each of the last two presidential elections, and nearly as much during the mid-terms.

Those amounts are overshadowed by the pharmaceutical industry’s annual lobbying expenditures. The industry  spent more than $150 million to influence federal and state legislatures in 2024. Of its more than 700 lobbyists, nearly two thirds were former government employees.

The pharmaceutical lobby spent more money over the past quarter century than did electric utilities, oil and gas companies, hospitals and nursing homes—more than the automotive and defense aerospace industries combined.

Research

Developing new medications is expensive. The average cost of bringing a new drug market can range up to $2 billion, according to data cited by the Congressional Budget Office.

Congress aided companies investing in research via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes a provision for makers of drugs that treat rare diseases. The law widens the definition of a rare disease drug and further delays Medicare price negotiations on drugs that treat them.

That allows the makers of those drugs to continue charging Medicare full price for the medications, in order to fund future research.

Normally, a drug that has been marketed for at least 9 years and receives $200 million per year in Medicare payments would be eligible for price negotiation.

Read the rest here…

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours)

Thanks to social media use, school grade inflation, and environmental factors, narcissistic behavior appears to be on the rise in children and teenagers, some psychotherapists and experts say.

Its prevalence in students under the age of 18 has increased by about 10 percent in the past 12 years and should be on the radar of school psychologists when school resumes soon, according to David Liebert, a practicing psychotherapist based in Tampa, Florida.

Liebert cautions that narcissism is a very broad term and that mental health professionals generally refrain from diagnosing the specific personality disorder in children because their personalities are still developing. Consequently estimates vary widely.

Narcissistic personality disorder is defined as a need for admiration, a pervasive pattern of grandiosity—an overinflated sense of one’s importance—and a lack of empathy for others. It affects less than 2 percent of the general population, according to the National Library of Medicine.

Liebert said he believes that in recent years, the self-esteem movement may have gone too far. The need for constant approval is a common problem in communities where children get trophies for finishing last, and gold stars are no longer awarded for the best work for fear of excluding others.

“A minimally bruised self-esteem,” balanced with humility, is healthy, Liebert said. “You’ve got to provide kids a little more opportunity to fail.”

Anita Horvath, a psychotherapist based in Cobleskill, New York, said narcissistic behavior often occurs in individuals who, as children, were praised for their performance but not seen as a whole being.

She believes this behavior has steadily increased over time. Today’s children are spending more time away from their parents. Even when they’re with their parents, they may be less connected, in an era that’s focused on performance and productivity rather than on the whole child. Consequently, they have less help dealing with negative experiences.

What’s more, parents may be immature themselves, Horvath told The Epoch Times.

“Oftentimes, parenting is not about meeting the child’s emotional needs. It’s the child who is asked to meet the parents’ needs. Emotionally immature parents get triggered, project it onto the child, the child is forced to adjust to receive their love. And sometimes, as a result, their personality shapes itself in a disordered way,” she  said.

Horvath believes corrective measures are rooted in traditional family values.

“Valuing marriage. Valuing family. Owning and working through our own struggles, instead of making our children do that,” she said.

“We buy them things again and again, parent permissively, leave them alone with the internet, don’t take responsibility for them and don’t give them responsibility, don’t spend enough quality time with them, and then wonder why they seem grandiose.”

Trauma Response

There’s an umbrella of narcissistic behavior, but the formal diagnosis requires precise criteria, said Tina Lintner, senior clinical manager of residential programs at Rawhide Youth Services in New London, Wisconsin.

“How freely people use the word narcissist is really unjust and unfair,” she told The Epoch Times.

Adolescents who experienced neglect and trauma often go into self-preservation survival mode and lack empathy for others, she said.

These kids might feel that they were a burden to others, and when left alone, they made poor decisions without supervision, including bullying others to disguise their low self-esteem, Lintner said. Those who display self-importance and grandiosity, could be lacking self-confidence and self-worth, she said.

The boys treated in Rawhide’s residential program came through the state’s juvenile justice system. They live in small group settings with peers, supervisory staff, and therapists. They are responsible for making meals, cooperatively managing their living space, learning consideration for others, and acquiring coping and life skills along the way. Phones, video games, and social media use are restricted.

“You do see more stable behavior without it [online devices],” she said. “It’s quite noticeable.”

Catrina Drinning-Davis, a Texas-based therapist who works with domestic abuse survivors, said narcissism is a common disorder in people who abuse their spouses or children.

Many of them learn that behavior from their parents or grew up with a sense of entitlement stemming from a lack of consequences for their actions. Abuse patterns in romantic relationships, she said, can start as early as 14 years old and worsen over time.

“It’s all about me—if you don’t give me what I want, I’m going to make your life hell,” Drinning-Davis told The Epoch Times. “Abusive people also look for people younger than them.”

A meta-analysis of data from more than 37,000 participants across the United States, Canada, and Western Europe, published last year by the American Psychological Association, suggested that while levels of narcissism fade from childhood into older adulthood, “people who were more narcissistic than average as children remained more narcissistic than average as adults.”

Parents’ Role

Narcissistic behavior gets passed down, said Rick Rodgers, a licensed clinical social worker based in Indiana. He treats narcissism as a family problem, not an individual one. In most cases, he said, a parent is also a narcissist or has an undiagnosed condition such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or even some level of autism.

A narcissistic parent either completely neglects their child or tries to live vicariously through them with unrealistic expectations, he said.

“The Baby Boomer generation is the most narcissistic generation,” he told The Epoch Times. “Remember those commercials from the ‘80s and ’90s— ‘It’s 10 o’clock. Do you know where your children are?’ It was a public service announcement because Boomers were focused on themselves and not their children.”

Tim Diehl, father and former pastor in Reading, Pennsylvania, said there’s more peer pressure on parents now to cater to their child’s every need. He pointed to travel sports, which can be expensive and time-consuming, as an example.

“Everyone else is doing that for their kids because they feel like that defines them as a parent, but most parents don’t like having to drive them around so much, and the kids don’t appreciate it,” Diehl, 48, told The Epoch Times.

Diehl said teens are somewhat naturally selfish; it’s not unusual for them to think everything revolves around them.

Social media exacerbates the generation gap. Parents often appear less interesting than the virtual world. Adults in the home allow children to become disconnected from reality, when they should be pushing them out of their comfort zone, Diehl said.

“There’s value from that job you didn’t like, that boss you didn’t like,” he said. “All of the things we don’t like kind of serve us in the long run.”

“Maturity is about relationships and wisdom. Disconnection and immediacy are antagonistic to wisdom. Too many of us [parents] are not paying attention. The work of adulthood is learning to pay attention.”

Parents can curb narcissistic behavior in children by instilling that there’s something beyond themselves, such as family, God, and country, Leibert said.

“Take on some responsibility that will offer no praise, but still makes someone else’s life better,” he said.

Social Media

The typical teenage struggle to fit in has evolved into a quest to become famous and be better than others, according to Mark Gregston, founder of Parenting Today’s Teens, a Texas-based nonprofit. He has worked with adolescents in group home settings for five decades.

Social media and social media influencers have played a role in this disturbing trend, he said.

“People eventually find consumption with self isn’t going anywhere,” Gregston told The Epoch Times. “There’s a cost to becoming consumed with yourself. You don’t grow up.”

Gregston teaches young people and their parents the value of personal interaction, deeper conversations, and relationships.

Teens don’t have access to cell phones during their year at Gregston’s Heartlight residential counseling center.

When they return home, he said, “their biggest problem is finding like-minded peers who don’t care so much about phones.”

Liebert, the Tampa-based psychotherapist, said classroom phone bans, taking effect in schools across several states in the upcoming academic year, are a step in the right direction.

“I’ve never had a patient say to me, ‘When you told me to cut down social media use and reduce scrolling by 50 percent, my life fell apart,’” Liebert told the Epoch Times.

The Kremlin stated on Monday that a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump is possible if both leaders are in Beijing at the same time this September.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that Putin plans to travel to China to attend events commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. However, he noted that Moscow has not received any information regarding Trump’s potential attendance, but he teased the possibility of a face-to-face meeting.

“You know that we are preparing for a trip to Beijing, our president is preparing for this trip… But we have not heard that President Trump is also going there, to Beijing,” Peskov said when asked on the matter of if the two leaders could meet, including even possibly a three-way format with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

“If it so happens that (Trump) is there, then, of course, we cannot rule out that the question of the expediency of holding a meeting will be raised,” Peskov continued.

Interestingly, a report in The Times (UK) just days ago said that China has been angling to play hosts precisely to such a historic meeting, as tensions with Washington continue to thaw.

“A series of trade deals between Washington and China has reversed President Trump’s hostility to Beijing and raised suggestions that he will be invited to meet both President Xi and President Putin for a summit in September,” the report began.

“A visit by Trump to Beijing would mark a striking U-turn after his months of criticism of China over America’s trade deficits and his accusations of its complicity in drugs trafficking,” The Times continued.

One popular Chinese analyst laid out that this would be a win for each nation involved:

China and the United States co-operated closely during the war, when both were attacked by Japan, and analysts as well as some ordinary Chinese have urged Xi to seize the opportunity and host both Trump and Putin for a three-way summit.

“Why not align Trump’s visit with the September 3 parade?” Jin Canrong, one of China’s most prominent nationalist commentators, said in an interview with Guancha, a Shanghai-based news website. “From 1941 to 1945, China and the US were allies against Japanese militarism.”

“If President Trump visits China and attends the parade on September 3, it would send a strong, positive signal to the world. The image of the Chinese, Russian and American leaders standing together could be a powerful message of peace and stability.”

Certainly President Trump has been looking for some kind of breakthrough related to stalled efforts to negotiate peace between Russia and Ukraine, as well as seeking to heel ties between the US and Moscow. And he does like the optics of ‘going big’. A trilateral Putin, Xi, Trump summit would be very big and unexpected indeed.

Of course, the US national security establishment would positively hate it and mainstream media pundits would run “appeasing Putin” and “appeasing Xi” type headlines in response, but this is to be expected and likely has little impact among the public anymore.

Authored by Murad Sadygzade,

The various regional conflicts are increasingly becoming a standoff between the West and the Global South…

Global events increasingly reflect the growing confrontation between the Western bloc, led by the United States and its allies, and the countries of the so-called “World Majority,” coalescing around BRICS.

This geopolitical tension is particularly evident against the backdrop of escalating conflicts in the Middle East, where the actions of the US and Israel are seen as manifestations of Western hegemony, while BRICS nations and their partners are increasingly positioning themselves as defenders of multipolarity, sovereignty, and a just international order.

On July 7, US President Donald Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. The two leaders discussed two major issues: the upcoming negotiations with Iran and the controversial initiative to relocate Palestinians from Gaza. These topics underscored Washington and West Jerusalem’s efforts to reshape the Middle East’s security architecture – framed under the banner of offering a “better future,” yet unfolding amid growing accusations of violations of international law.

During a working dinner, Netanyahu stated that Israel and the US had been consulting with several countries allegedly willing to accept Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza. He emphasized that the proposed relocation would be “voluntary,” offering a better future to those who seek it. According to him, agreements with a number of countries were already nearing completion.

Initially, Trump refrained from making a clear statement on the matter, but later remarked that “neighboring countries have been extremely cooperative,” expressing confidence that “something good will happen.” This ambiguity may reflect either an attempt to soften the political sensitivity of the issue or a reluctance to prematurely reveal the details of a plan that has drawn considerable criticism.

Previously, Trump had proposed transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East” and relocating its population – an idea harshly rejected both by the residents of the enclave and by international human rights organizations, which characterized it as a form of ethnic cleansing. Behind the scenes of the dinner, indirect negotiations between Israel and Hamas were ongoing, focused on securing a ceasefire and a hostage exchange.

The meeting marked the third in-person encounter between Trump and Netanyahu since the Republican leader’s return to the White House in January. Just two weeks earlier, the US had carried out strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in support of Israeli military action. Days later, Trump helped broker a short-term ceasefire in the 12-day war between Israel and Iran – an achievement likely intended to bolster his own diplomatic credentials.

During the meeting, Trump announced that his administration had scheduled formal talks with Iran. He said that Tehran had shown a willingness to negotiate following substantial military and economic pressure. US Special Envoy for the Middle East Steve Witkoff confirmed that the meeting was expected to take place “within the next week.”

Trump also indicated he was open to lifting sanctions on Iran under the right circumstances. Meanwhile, Iran’s newly elected president, Masoud Pezeshkian, expressed hope that tensions with the United States could be resolved through diplomacy. These statements suggested a potential, albeit limited, window for resetting US-Iranian relations, though both sides appeared driven primarily by tactical considerations.

The political significance of the Trump-Netanyahu meeting was further underscored by protests outside the White House. Hundreds of demonstrators, waving Palestinian flags, demanded an end to US military support for Israel and called for Netanyahu’s arrest in light of the International Criminal Court’s warrant against him for alleged war crimes in Gaza.

Earlier that day, Netanyahu had met with Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The following day, he held talks with congressional leaders. During his meeting with Trump, the Israeli prime minister also handed the president a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize – a symbolic gesture aimed at reinforcing the strategic bond between the two leaders and appealing to their respective domestic audiences.

The Israeli side expressed hope that the outcome of the conflict with Iran could help advance the normalization of relations with several Arab states, including Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. In this sense, the actions of Israel and the US in the region appear to be aimed not only at immediate security concerns but also at a long-term strategic reshaping of the Middle Eastern landscape.

However, the situation is far from straightforward. It seems that Netanyahu is trying to create the appearance of active engagement in peace processes, while in reality showing little interest in achieving meaningful change. Israeli media have reported that Netanyahu is under “intense pressure” from Trump, who is pushing for a Gaza ceasefire deal. Nevertheless, no substantial progress has yet been made.

Media sources indicate that Witkoff’s planned trip to Doha has been postponed. Earlier that evening, Witkoff had expressed optimism, claiming that only one issue remained unresolved: where the Israeli army would redeploy. This question is crucial, as Israel insists on retaining control over the city of Rafah in southern Gaza and securing the release of hostages. Current estimates suggest that around 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with approximately 20 believed to be alive.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz has announced plans to establish a tent city in Rafah to relocate up to 600,000 Palestinians. Israel would control entry into the camp, prevent residents from leaving, and subsequently begin the process of transferring them out of Gaza altogether. This is all part of what has been referred to as the “Trump Plan” for the “depopulation” of the enclave and the establishment of full Israeli control.

According to Katz’s broader plan, the remainder of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents could eventually be expelled as well. Critics argue that this approach would amount to the forced displacement of Palestinians to third countries. Annelle Sheline, a fellow with the Quincy Institute’s Middle East program, described the proposed camps as “concentration camps” and expressed doubt that the Trump administration would intervene to stop the implementation of Israeli plans.

“Although Washington wields considerable influence over the details of what’s happening, Trump effectively sidestepped the question of forced displacement by deferring responsibility to Netanyahu,” Sheline told Al Jazeera.

She further stated that Trump is surrounded by advisors who are unlikely to challenge him on moral or legal grounds. “What’s happening isn’t just a potential crime against humanity – it’s an effort to legitimize genocide and the subsequent deportation of survivors. And it implicates the United States directly,” the expert emphasized.

Trump himself has continued to strongly support Netanyahu, including by interfering in Israel’s internal politics – he has openly criticized the prosecutors leading the corruption investigation against the Israeli prime minister, who faces charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Netanyahu has denied all allegations.

According to the latest figures, the war in Gaza has killed at least 57,575 Palestinians and injured another 136,879.

The majority of Gaza’s population has been displaced, and UN estimates suggest that nearly half a million people are now on the brink of famine.

Against the backdrop of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, the day before – on July 6 – the BRICS leaders issued a joint declaration condemning the June strikes by Israel and the US on Iran, particularly targeting nuclear facilities. “We condemn the military strikes against Iran that have taken place since June 13, 2025, which constitute a violation of international law and the UN Charter,” the statement read.

Specifically, the BRICS leaders expressed concern over attacks on civilian infrastructure and nuclear facilities. They also voiced alarm over the escalating tensions in the Middle East and called for diplomatic efforts to resolve regional crises. The declaration demanded a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and other occupied Palestinian territories and urged an immediate, lasting, and unconditional ceasefire. It further affirmed that Gaza is an integral part of the State of Palestine, which must be granted full independence.

The summit participants also called for the urgent delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza and advocated for the prompt release of both Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. The declaration emphasized that Gaza and the West Bank should be administered by the future government of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Unsurprisingly, Trump – along with Netanyahu – was deeply displeased by the BRICS statement. He has repeatedly threatened sanctions against BRICS member states and their allies. According to Politico, Trump sent a letter to the Brazilian government threatening to impose 50% tariffs, accusing the country of politically persecuting former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is under investigation for his alleged role in the attempted coup of 2022. The White House reportedly chose swift and effective trade pressure over more complex sanctions mechanisms. According to former US Special Envoy to Latin America Mauricio Claver-Carone, the BRICS summit was “the last straw” for Washington.

Trump’s anger, his allies say, stems not only from the situation around Bolsonaro but also from BRICS’s ongoing efforts to de-dollarize the global economy. The group’s condemnation of the strikes on Iran and Israeli actions in the Middle East was also met with frustration in Washington. Former White House strategist Steve Bannon noted that Trump is irritated by every step the bloc takes to undermine the US dollar, and that the summit in Rio de Janeiro only intensified that irritation. In response to Washington’s threats, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced retaliatory 50% tariffs on US goods. Meanwhile, Trump continues to ramp up pressure on other BRICS-aligned countries, threatening 10% tariffs – and previously even floated 100% tariffs – should the bloc attempt to replace the dollar in global trade.

Analyzing current global developments – from the BRICS summit in Rio to the escalating tensions in the Middle East – it is becoming increasingly clear that the world is moving toward a pronounced geopolitical divide. The interconnected nature of political, economic, and military processes across continents demonstrates that the era of unipolar dominance is fading. A growing confrontation is unfolding between two major blocs: the so-called West, led by the US, and the emerging non-Western world, whose political and economic core is increasingly represented by BRICS. This coalition is steadily solidifying its role as the voice of the Global South, positioning itself as the flagship of a movement advocating for multipolarity and greater equity in international affairs.

In its bid to preserve global dominance, the US has increasingly resorted to political and economic coercion, viewing BRICS’ efforts as a direct challenge to the existing order. Yet, the global rift is not merely economic or ideological. The Middle East has become a frontline where this confrontation takes on the form of open conflict. Israel’s actions, backed by Washington, are increasingly perceived in the non-Western world as a Western offensive against the interests of the “World Majority” – nations that reject the dictates of traditional power centers. Within this context, Russia and China – both staunch supporters of Iran and other regional actors – are seen as natural allies to those resisting what is perceived as destructive Western policy. The contours of this global divide are becoming ever more defined: on one side, the US and its allies and proxies; on the other, those advocating for a reimagined world order based on fairness, sovereignty, and a balance of interests.

From this, one clear conclusion emerges: conflicts in the Middle East are set to intensify. Gaza will likely remain a flashpoint of violence and humanitarian crisis, as the root political and geopolitical causes of the conflict go unaddressed. The confrontation between Israel and Iran – already escalating through direct military engagements and cyber operations – may evolve into a wider and more dangerous conflict. Moreover, the arc of tension is likely to draw in additional regional players, including Türkiye and various Arab states. Despite longstanding economic and military ties with the West, many of these countries are increasingly gravitating toward the non-Western camp, which champions reforms to global institutions, challenges hegemonic structures, and upholds sovereignty and equality in international relations. This trend lays the groundwork for a profound transformation – not only of the Middle East, but of the global system itself – where the battle over new rules of engagement becomes a driving force behind enduring instability and conflict.

Authored by Walker Larson via The Epoch Times,

In the past, the younger generation tended to rebel against the religious norms of their parents. Young people’s resistance to the rules and institutions of religion was assumed and expected. But that’s not the case anymore.

According to a recent article from Axios, members of Gen Z—which includes young people born between 1997 and 2012—are actually more likely to go to weekly religious services than millennials and young Gen Xers.

According to some reports, church attendance has quadrupled amongst Gen Zers in recent years.

America witnessed a steady decline in Christianity from the 1970s through the 1990s, with only about 46 percent of Americans born in the ’90s identifying as Christian. Yet that falling trend has abruptly halted, likely due to a surge in religiosity amongst young Americans, particularly young men. Some Catholic dioceses, for instance, have reported a 70 percent increase in converts this year compared to last, and many of these new converts are people in their teens and twenties. The winds have changed.

The phenomenon is not restricted to just the United States, either. Throughout the West—which has for so long been the graveyard of Christian civilization, dominated by an aggressive liberal secularism—there are signs of a religious renaissance. In Britain, for example, the percentage of people aged 18 to 24 who attend church at least once a month spiked from 4 percent in 2018 to 16 percent in 2025. This included a 21 percent gain among young men. Meanwhile, across the channel in France, the Catholic Church baptized more than 10,000 adults at the 2025 Easter Vigil—a 45 percent increase over baptisms in 2024, and a 90 percent increase over 2023.

Even in the Netherlands—which is certainly no bastion of Catholicism—priests are noticing an increase in young people attending Mass. According to Dutch Cardinal Willem Eijk, “The numbers are not huge in the Netherlands, but we hear these noises from almost every pastor. It is clear that something is happening. We also see it reflected in the interest in the priesthood: there are many new applications.”

While it’s not just the Catholic Church seeing this growth, Catholicism in particular seems to be garnering unexpected interest from the young. In an interview with Fox News, Gen Z influencer Isabel Brown explained that the time-honored traditions and unyielding teachings of the church appeal to young people who feel disillusioned with inauthentic forms of Christianity that sway with the times. Moreover, according to Brown, Catholicism’s teaching that Jesus Himself can be directly encountered in the Holy Eucharist offers a real experience of the transcendent that’s especially enticing in a culture given over more and more to the artificial and inauthentic. “What this really boils down to is a level of relationship and intimacy with Jesus offered through the Holy Eucharist that is unfound anywhere else,” she said.

So the evidence is clear. A religious revival is emerging. The question is, why? To Brown, it’s a natural reaction against what she sees as the evils of the age: “You watch the degradation of marriage, the normalization of transitioning children, abortion by the millions for the most vulnerable in our society over the past several decades and in the midst this darkness, we’re watching young people run back towards God.”

Cardinal Eijk identifies a thirst for stability and meaning in those newly-interested in religion: “The younger generation often lacks a fixed point in their lives. Their lives have no deeper meaning or destination. But questions about meaning arise for everyone, including them.”

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh came to the same conclusion in his analysis of the phenomenon, arguing that human beings inherently need meaning and purpose in their lives and their culture. “You cannot have a society that exists without meaning for very long,” he said on his podcast, “The Matt Walsh Show.” “A society without meaning will either collapse and be destroyed, or it will be revived and it will rediscover meaning.”

The insights of Eijk and Walsh are backed up by the famous research of Austrian psychologist Viktor Frankl, who conducted a careful study of human nature when he was placed in a concentration camp during World War II. Stripped of all the normal vestures of life, all the veneer of civilized life, Frankl’s fellow prisoners presented a stark image of human nature reduced to its essentials. Frankl concluded from studying human behavior in the camp and afterwards in his clinical practice that humans are not fundamentally motivated by the desire for power, as Marx taught, nor sexual drive, as Freud insisted, but by an acute need to find meaning in existence.

From these insights, Frankl developed his own school of psychotherapy, known as “logotherapy,” which he described in these terms in his book “Man’s Search for Meaning”: “Logotherapy … focuses on the meaning of human existence as well as on man’s search for such a meaning. … Man’s search for meaning is the primary motivation in his life and not a ‘secondary rationalization’ of instinctual drives.” According to Frankl, it is humanity’s unheard cry for meaning—ignored by a “post-truth” modern society—that causes many modern mental health problems.

Young people today aren’t convinced by the pseudo-meaning dished up by contemporary society, the appetizing yet ultimately substanceless consumerism, hedonism, secularism, and individualism. So they’re turning to the force that provided meaning for generation upon generation of our ancestors: religion.

Part of the meaning furnished from religion involves a sense of belonging. Younger generations want to belong to something bigger than themselves. The Western cult of unchecked individualism and personal freedom has turned out to be a rather lonely and unfulfilling path for many, and might explain, too, on the other end of the spectrum, the rush to find an identity within LGBTQ+ and similar groups. “Many young people have turned to religion to find community and connection after the isolating years of the pandemic, which hit Gen Z harder than most,” theorizes the Axios article.

During COVID, many people’s primary connection to the wider world was the internet. Gen Z is among the first generations to grow up, more or less, with the internet and to be shaped by it. That upbringing has come with its own set of problems. But it’s also been, ironically, a path to a more authentic experience of life for many of these “digital natives.”

The internet has allowed people to forge—or rather, rediscover—certain intellectual paths that are “far from the madding crowd.” The internet provided an alternative to mainstream culture, which—during the really heavy years of decline in religiosity—was more narrowly controlled and more uniform via television, radio, Hollywood, and the music industry. All these cultural mediums were transmitting a strong secular message. But the internet, for all its problems, has now opened up myriad forms of alternative information and entertainment, allowing more traditional, less mainstream messages to get through in a way they probably didn’t a generation ago.

Cardinal Eijk specifically attributes the conversions he’s seeing to internet evangelism, stating that the young converts “have often found their way to the Church through the Internet and Catholic influencers on social media.” Similarly, sociology professor Anne Hendershott notes that the internet has allowed for a new form of the evangelization called for by Pope John Paul II in the 1980s.

Where and how far will this new wind blow? It’s impossible to say. But for those who long for a restoration of tradition in America and some kind of bulwark against the further erosion of values once held sacred in our country—especially religious ones—this wind bears a scent of hope. As the younger generation begins to replace the older one in posts of influence, their beliefs will become increasingly the beliefs of the institutions that make up society and their priorities the priorities of culture. If current data is any indicator, those priorities will be faithful to traditional religious belief, which could signal a wholesale cultural revolution—or, more accurately, restoration.

As Brown put it, “God’s not done with American culture yet.”

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

American diplomat and Trump admin official Richard Grenell has issued the following message on X: “I have just been given horrific news and videos of what is said to be an American citizen from Oklahoma who has been brutally killed in Syria. He is Druse. I have passed it on to a senior State Department official and a Member of Congress to check the facts.”

Unconfirmed reports have identified the slain American as Hosam Saraya, a member of the Druze community, who was among those killed in the outbreak of sectarian violence earlier this month. Hardline Sunnis of the Jolani/Sharaa regime have been sent to disarm the Druze community of Syria’s Sweida region, resulting in ethno-religious cleansing.

Further, a video circulating online allegedly shows Saraya and his whole family being executed by unidentified militants. A State Department official has told one regional media source, “The department is reviewing reports regarding the death of an individual believed to be a U.S. citizen in Syria.”

The fighting which erupted on July 13 has left hundreds dead, mostly Druze and many civilians, as fighting broke out between Druze militias and Sunni Bedouin groups.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham fighters from Damascus, representing the government, have even before this latest flare-up in violence been conducting brutal attacks against Druze areas, often torturing young men and conducting street executions.

Over the weekend, Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged the Syrian government to stop “violent jihadists” from committing atrocities in the south – but a ceasefire has reportedly held since then.

There are further reports that Druze women and children have been kidnapped by HTS jihadists, also following widespread accusations that Alawite women have been targeted for forced marriages and sex slavery.

Still the US ambassador to Turkey, who is also special envoy to Syria, is standing by the new post-Assad regime and its fanatical jihadists:

A U.S. envoy doubled down on Washington’s support for Syria’s new government, saying Monday there is “no Plan B” to working with it to unite the country still reeling from years of civil war and wracked by new sectarian violence.

Barrack told the AP that “the killing, the revenge, the massacres on both sides” are “intolerable,” but that “the current government of Syria, in my opinion, has conducted themselves as best they can as a nascent government with very few resources to address the multiplicity of issues that arise in trying to bring a diverse society together.”

At a press conference later, he said Syrian authorities “need to be held accountable” for violations.

Jolani’s TV station accidentally exposed the kidnapping of Druze women & children at the hands of forces loyal to the self-appointed president, then the interviewer was asked to cut the interview.

There are now dozens of confirmed cases of kidnapped of Druze civilians in Suwayda pic.twitter.com/ZjLsH2a47Z

— Bassem (@BBassem7) July 20, 2025

It was Washington who played a very large role in ousting Assad in the first place, and it is sticking by its band of “former” al-Qaeda terrorists now running Damascus.

And yet it will be the country’s ancient Christian community, as well as all Alawites, Druze, Shia, and any non-Salafi Sunni which continue to suffer. The country’s prior secular identity continues to be stamped out.