67.9 F
Chicago
Saturday, September 19, 2026
Home Blog Page 1315

What Just Happened In Rio Should Terrify The West

What Just Happened In Rio Should Terrify The West

Authored by Farhad Ibragimov,

A few days ago, the city of Rio de Janeiro hosted the 17th BRICS summit, marking a significant step forward for the organization amid the accelerating transformation of the global political and economic landscape. Represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia played an active role in the summit’s proceedings, while President Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session via video link. In his remarks, the Russian leader offered a comprehensive analysis of current global trends, emphasizing that the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.

The Rio summit reaffirmed BRICS’ growing political weight and its ambition to become a key force in shaping the emerging multipolar order. High-level meetings drew global attention not only because of their scale but also due to the substantive outcomes they produced. A total of 126 joint commitments were adopted, spanning critical areas such as global governance reform, the restructuring of international financial institutions, healthcare, climate initiatives, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.

The declaration adopted at the summit, titled ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’, underscored BRICS’ commitment to multilateralism, respect for international law, and the promotion of a fair and equitable world order. But beyond the formal language, the summit revealed a deeper shift: BRICS is no longer limiting itself to cautious technocratic dialogue. The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as a cohesive international actor – capable of proposing new frameworks for economic integration, political solidarity, and global coordination.

Crucially, this political reorientation did not begin in Rio. It builds directly on the strategic groundwork laid during the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia – the largest BRICS gathering to date – which brought together not only member states but also dozens of partners under the BRICS+ umbrella. The Kazan summit established a new level of cooperation and ambition, and Rio served as a continuation of that trajectory. It became the arena where aspirations evolved into policy, and where the Global South began to more clearly articulate its place in the world.

From economic cooperation to collective security

Among the most consequential developments at the Rio summit was the firm commitment to advancing financial sovereignty among member states. Particular emphasis was placed on transitioning to transactions in national currencies – a long-standing initiative championed by Russia and several other BRICS countries. The leaders endorsed this direction, recognizing the need to reduce dependence on dominant reserve currencies. President Putin underscored that this was not merely an economic measure, but a geopolitical move aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of participating nations and insulating them from external pressure.

In support of this goal, the summit produced agreements to boost mutual investment volumes and accelerate the development of independent payment and settlement mechanisms. These initiatives are designed to lay the groundwork for a more resilient financial architecture – one that bypasses traditional Western-controlled institutions and empowers countries to determine the terms of their own economic cooperation. Increasingly, BRICS views economic autonomy as a precondition for long-term political independence in a world marked by volatility and polarization.

But the Rio summit did more than solidify the BRICS financial agenda. For the first time in its history, the organization made a strong, collective political statement on an issue directly related to international security. The final declaration included a specific condemnation of Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Russia’s Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions. Referring to the bombings of bridges and railway lines on May 31, June 1, and June 5, 2025, the text reads: “We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks against bridges and railways infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians.”

This passage carries substantial symbolic and strategic weight. Despite the ideological and political diversity of BRICS members, the bloc united in denouncing attacks that threaten the internal security of one of its founding members. This is a marked departure from the organization’s previously cautious diplomatic tone on sensitive geopolitical issues. BRICS, once defined by its reluctance to address matters of military conflict or security, is now building a normative foundation for solidarity and shared responsibility.

The inclusion of this clause suggests that BRICS is beginning to embrace a collective role in shaping norms related to international conflict and security. It signals that the alliance is willing to defend the principle of territorial integrity not just rhetorically, but through coordinated diplomatic action. This is more than a gesture – it is the foundation of a future in which BRICS may serve not only as an economic bloc, but as a political and moral anchor in a divided world.

The American reaction: why Washington is nervous

Just 48 hours after the release of the Rio declaration – particularly the section denouncing unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures – US President Donald Trump issued a sharp response. From the White House lawn, he threatened to impose a 10% tariff on all imports from BRICS countries and accused the bloc of attempting to “degenerate the dollar.” In characteristically blunt terms, he remarked: “If you have a smart president, you will never lose the standard. If you have a stupid president like the last one, you would lose the standard.”

While Trump’s words may have been wrapped in personal bravado, the underlying message was clear: Washington sees BRICS not as a neutral economic club, but as a mounting strategic threat. Despite the bloc’s repeated assertions that its cooperation is not aimed against any third party, the West views efforts to establish alternative economic frameworks – particularly those bypassing the dollar and Western-controlled institutions – as an existential challenge to US hegemony.

The nature of the response underscores a deeper anxiety in Washington. BRICS initiatives once dismissed as symbolic or impractical are now materializing into real structures: trade in local currencies, independent payment systems, and new investment platforms with global reach. These are not just alternatives – they are systemic innovations that call into question the foundations of the current world order.

Trump’s outburst, then, is not just a political sideshow. It is evidence that BRICS is crossing a threshold – from peripheral relevance to central influence in global affairs. For years, Western analysts argued that the bloc would collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. Yet BRICS has not only endured – it has expanded, institutionalized, and begun to assert itself in domains once considered off-limits.

The American reaction confirms what many in the Global South already perceive: that BRICS is no longer a passive forum for South-South dialogue. It is becoming an active agent in reshaping the architecture of international power.

No turning back: BRICS as a systemic alternative

The Rio summit left little doubt that BRICS is evolving beyond its original mandate. Once focused primarily on economic coordination, the bloc is now laying the institutional groundwork for an alternative system of global governance – one rooted in sovereignty, equality, and resistance to unilateral pressure. This transformation is not driven by ideology but by the lived experience of its member states, many of which have faced the political and economic consequences of a Western-dominated order.

Three strategic vectors are propelling BRICS forward.

  • First, its geo-economic advantage: the bloc is consolidating control over key global trade routes and resource markets. With the accession of new members in 2024-2025 – including Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia – BRICS now spans critical logistical corridors across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. The bloc also commands a significant share of the world’s reserves in energy, rare earth elements, and agricultural commodities, granting it considerable influence over global supply chains and commodity pricing.

  • Second, BRICS possesses an increasingly potent force of attraction. Despite mounting external pressure and efforts to isolate its members, more than 30 countries have applied for membership or partnership status. This groundswell reflects a growing desire among Global South nations for a platform free from ideological gatekeeping, conditional loans, or weaponized sanctions. BRICS, in their eyes, is not just a bloc – it is a symbol of multipolarity, mutual respect, and strategic independence.

  • Third, BRICS is beginning to serve as a functional alternative to gridlocked institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Without explicitly seeking to replace them, BRICS offers a more agile and consensus-based model – one that prioritizes non-interference, sovereignty, and pragmatic cooperation over rigid norms or selective enforcement. Its representation of the world’s demographic and economic majority lends it moral and political weight, especially in a context where trust in traditional global structures is in sharp decline.

In this light, the anxiety emanating from Washington is not simply reactive – it is anticipatory. The US and its allies understand that what BRICS is building is more than a set of alternative institutions. It is a rival paradigm: one that challenges the monopoly of the dollar, rejects coercive diplomacy, and proposes a new vocabulary for international legitimacy.

The Rio summit demonstrated that BRICS is not content to remain a forum of dialogue. It is becoming a vehicle for action. The question is no longer whether BRICS will shape the future of global governance, but how – and how fast. What began in Kazan, and accelerated in Rio, is a project with momentum. And in the shifting landscape of 2025, that momentum now appears irreversible.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 22:10

Trump Calls Epstein List A Democrat Psyop, Tells MAGA ‘Not To Waste Time And Energy’

Trump Calls Epstein List A Democrat Psyop, Tells MAGA ‘Not To Waste Time And Energy’

Less than one year ago, then-candidate Donald Trump vowed to release the Jeffrey Epstein files – aka the ‘list’ of friends and associates who violated “more than 1,000” sex-trafficked victims. 

Now, after his FBI just came out to say ‘nothing to see here!‘ (no list, and Epstein definitely killed himself), Trump just wants the whole thing to go away for some reason we can’t quite put our finger on. 

Last week Trump lashed out at a reporter for asking about Epstein, saying “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy’s been talked about for years.” 

On Saturday, Trump gave a masterclass in how to look guilty – writing in a Truth Social post “We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and “selfish people” are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again.”

Yeah, why do people want to find out which rich and powerful men were fucking children provided by Epstein? And what did Trump mean when he said that Epstein ‘never dies’? (Maybe QAnon knows)

Trump then attempted to discredit the Epstein files, equating it to the Steele dossier…

Why are we giving publicity to Files written by Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration, who conned the World with the Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, 51 “Intelligence” Agents, “THE LAPTOP FROM HELL,” and more? They created the Epstein Files, just like they created the FAKE Hillary Clinton/Christopher Steele Dossier that they used on me, and now my so-called “friends” are playing right into their hands,” adding “Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it?”

Maybe because it would implicate everyone on both sides of the aisle? 

Trump then said that the FBI should focus on voter fraud and arresting “Thugs and Criminals, instead of spending month after month looking at nothing but the same old, Radical Left inspired Documents on Jeffrey Epstein.”

“One year ago our Country was DEAD, now it’s the “HOTTEST” Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.”

The screed earned Trump a ratio on his own platform…

Meanwhile, Tucker Carlson just said the quiet part out loud; Epstein was likely working a blackmail operation for Israel, which was conducting crimes on American soil. 

As Chris Hedges notesthe list of those who were in Epstein’s orbit is a who’s who of the rich and famous. They include not only Trump, but Bill Clinton, who allegedly took a trip to Thailand with Epstein, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates, hedge fund billionaire Glenn Dubin, former New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, former Secretary of the Treasury and former president of Harvard University Larry Summers, cognitive psychologist and author Stephen Pinker, Alan Dershowitz, billionaire and Victoria’s Secret CEO Leslie Wexner, the former Barclays banker Jes Staley, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, the magician David Copperfield, actor Kevin Spacey, former CIA director Bill Burns, real estate mogul Mort Zuckerman, former Maine senator George Mitchell and disgraced Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, who reveled in Epstein’s perpetual Bacchanalia.

Needless to say, Trump’s latest command to MAGA over Epstein has backfired…

Maybe Elon was right?

Also, where’s our Fort Knox audit?

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 21:35

10 Non-Tax Policies In Trump’s Megabill That Will Affect Americans

10 Non-Tax Policies In Trump’s Megabill That Will Affect Americans

Authored by Jackson Richman, Joseph Lord, Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is notable for implementing significant changes to the U.S. tax code, including making 2017’s individual income tax brackets permanent.

But there are non-tax-related items in the bill that will impact the lives of everyday Americans, affecting travel, women’s health care, immigration, and welfare benefits.

Here are ten major non-tax areas that are addressed in the legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4.

Air Traffic Control

The new law provides $12.5 billion to the Transportation Department to institute long-overdue reforms to the nation’s air traffic control system.

That includes $4.75 billion to upgrade copper telecommunication infrastructure to fiber optics, $3 billion for radar systems replacements, $500 million for safety technology to avoid near-misses on runways, and $100 million for advanced training technology for air traffic controllers.

At a July 8 cabinet meeting, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called the funding a “massive new start to rebuild air traffic control,” but said his agency will need more money to upgrade American aviation and make it the world’s leader.

Duffy has repeatedly pointed to the Federal Aviation Administration’s outdated technology and infrastructure, which still relies on floppy disks, aging copper wire, and rotary phones.

Despite the need for more funds, the bill could help reduce and avoid the sorts of delays that infamously bogged down Newark International Airport in New Jersey earlier this year.

Air traffic controllers monitor planes at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles on July 1, 2025. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Transportation Department will receive $12.5 billion to implement long-overdue reforms to the U.S. air traffic control system. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Border and Immigration

The legislation dedicates a total of $150 billion toward border security and immigration enforcement, aligning with some of Trump’s core promises on the 2024 campaign trail.

Approximately $80 billion of that amount is slated for domestic immigration enforcement operations.

The single biggest immigration item in the law is $46.5 billion dedicated to the construction of a border wall along the U.S.–Mexico border.

Much of the rest is slated for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency largely responsible for carrying out Trump’s mass deportation operation.

That includes $45 billion allocated for detention through September 2029—a 365 percent increase over ICE’s prior annual detention funding, which sat at $3.4 billion, according to the American Immigration Council. It provides $14.4 billion for transportation and removal operations, a 500 percent annual increase.

For state and local governments that assist with deportation efforts, $13.5 billion is allocated in grants.

Border Patrol agents monitor the U.S. border wall in San Ysidro, Calif., on July 25, 2024. The new legislation allocates $150 billion for border security and immigration enforcement. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Education

The bill makes several notable tweaks to federal education policy.

First, it would reduce Pell Grant eligibility for high-income students and students with full-ride scholarships. The approximately $7,000 annual grant has long provided a boost to funding Americans’ higher education.

The bill also proposes two federal student loan repayment plans, including one traditional repayment plan and one income-based repayment plan, as Republicans seek to do away with President Joe Biden’s contested Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan.

Additionally, it would tax college and university endowments at a variable rate—either 1.4 percent, 4 percent, or 8 percent—based on the institutions’ wealth.

Medicaid and Rural Hospitals

Some of the changes that have drawn the most attention are those made to Medicaid funding—changes that are expected to boot millions of beneficiaries off the entitlement program while potentially impacting rural hospitals.

To reduce Medicaid spending, the bill would impose an 80-hour monthly work requirement for able-bodied adults to receive benefits; the change would take effect by no later than December 2026.

It also reduces the “provider tax”—the rate at which states tax hospitals and doctors to pay for their Medicaid programs—from 6 percent to 3.5 percent in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Ten states that didn’t expand their programs will see no changes. That change won’t go into effect until 2028.

To offset fears that the changes would harm rural hospitals, the bill allocates $50 billion over five years to support such facilities.

Estimates vary significantly as to how many individuals could lose coverage as a result of the Medicaid changes. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that several million nationwide could lose coverage.

A man waits in a hospital in Irvine, Calif., on July 8, 2025. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes changes that could remove millions from Medicaid and impact rural hospitals. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

SNAP Cuts

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes new requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps.

In addition, the bill introduces more stringent work requirements for SNAP recipients. Currently, able-bodied recipients between 18–54 must spend 80 hours a month volunteering, working, looking for a job, or being in school. The bill widens that window to between 18-64 years of age.

Moreover, states will have to shoulder more of the burden when it comes to funding for SNAP. That means recipients could receive less in food stamps or lose access entirely, depending on the state in which they live.

‘Trump Accounts’ for Newborns

The bill also adds a pilot program for “Trump Accounts,” a type of federal trust account that comes prefunded with $1,000 from the Treasury Department for every child born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Children born before this year will also be eligible, but not for the initial $1,000 seed money.

The scheme allows Americans to contribute up to $5,000 a year to these accounts.

The money must be invested in a broad stock market index, and earnings will grow tax-deferred until the account holder withdraws the funds. Beneficiaries are eligible to withdraw half the money for qualified purposes when they reach the age of 18, and can access the full balance at age 25. Withdrawals would then be subject to either capital gains or income tax rates, depending on the nature of the expense.

Expenses such as tuition, a first home purchase, or small business expenses would be subject to the lower capital gains tax rate; all other uses of the funds would be subject to normal income tax rates, including an additional 10 percent penalty for nonqualified expenses.

People walk on the Lehigh University campus in Bethlehem, Pa., on Oct. 25, 2024. The legislation will affect higher education by reducing student grants and adjusting loan repayment plans and tax codes for institutions. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Spectrum

One section of the bill reinstates the Federal Communications Commission’s spectrum authority, a term that describes the agency’s ability to auction off specific radio frequencies to the private sector.

The authority expired in 2023 and, with limited direction from the Biden administration, became deadlocked in Congress.

The reauthorization of the program in the bill will generate $85 billion in revenues for the federal government over the next ten years, enables expansion of 5G and 6G mobile networks, and will allow for rural areas to receive radio communications that could be crucial during natural disasters in which they might not have access to TV.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act ends Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. Stripping federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services such as abortion, has been a longtime goal of conservatives.

A Planned Parenthood facility in Anaheim, Calif., on Sept. 10, 2020. The new legislation ends Medicaid funding for health care nonprofits that post more than $800,000 in profit in a year, including Planned Parenthood. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The legislation does not explicitly mention Planned Parenthood, but instead references abortion providers that are non-profits and received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023.

A federal judge has since put that aspect of the legislation on hold pending further litigation.

Obamacare Changes

The law also makes several substantial changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often known as “Obamacare.” The ACA Marketplace allows low-income Americans to buy discounted health insurance.

First, the legislation will require marketplace customers to re-enroll every year, much as some employees are required to reconfirm their chosen coverage for an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. During the re-enrollment process, customers will also have to re-verify their income.

It also shortens the open enrollment period—which was lengthened under Biden—by returning the period to the original Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 window.

Other provisions of the law exclude gender transition treatment from coverage, limit Marketplace tax credits to citizens and some lawful residents, and require enrollees to be current on their premium payments before re-enrolling for another year.

The changes will be implemented on a rolling basis, with some related to eligibility set to go into effect as early as December 2025.

A group of resident doctors talks with a senior doctor inside Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York City on July 1, 2025. Andres Kudacki/AP Photo

Expansion of Military Housing and Support Programs

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a $9 billion expansion of programs surrounding housing, child care, and other benefits for members of the Armed Forces and their families.

That includes a $2.9 billion increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing and $590 million to help with temporary housing allowances for service members, to help with relocation.

It also includes more funding for the military health care system.

The expanded benefits could incentivize more people, especially with spouses and children, to join the armed services.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 21:00

Visualizing Waymo’s Rise In Ridership

Visualizing Waymo’s Rise In Ridership

As autonomous driving technology becomes more mainstream, Waymo – Alphabet’s self-driving ride-hailing division – is rapidly gaining traction across California.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, visualizes the number of monthly paid Waymo trips in California from August 2023 to March 2025, and a map of the cities that Waymo current operates in and plans to operate in.

Data comes from California Public Utilities Commission.

Californians Have Been Riding With Waymo More Frequently

Below, we show the number of monthly paid Waymo trips from August 2023 to March 2025.

Date Monthly paid Waymo trips
Aug 2023 12,617
Sep 2023 38,473
Oct 2023 56,499
Nov 2023 56,905
Dec 2023 72,595
Jan 2024 77,242
Feb 2024 74,233
Mar 2024 83,851
Apr 2024 92,002
May 2024 143,621
Jun 2024 188,847
Jul 2024 250,752
Aug 2024 312,245
Sep 2024 354,124
Oct 2024 453,478
Nov 2024 503,634
Dec 2024 541,378
Jan 2025 550,457
Feb 2025 559,569
Mar 2025 708,180

The self-driving ride hailing service has over 700,000 recorded monthly paid trips as of March 2025, a 55-fold increase from August 2023.

In April 2025, Alphabet reported that Waymo is serving 250,000 paid trips per week in the U.S., a fivefold increase from a year ago.

Waymo’s growth comes amid a broader acceleration in autonomous vehicle (AV) adoption. The AV market is projected to grow from $99.4 billion in 2025 to $285.1 billion by 2029, according to Research and Markets.

Driverless ride-hailing services are gaining traction in urban centers, supported by regulatory progress, increased consumer trust, and advancements in AI and sensor technology.

As AV infrastructure improves and competition heats up from other players like Amazon’s Zoox and Tesla’s FSD, Waymo’s expanding footprint reflects the growing presence of robotaxis in urban mobility.

Waymo is currently available in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. The company plans to continue to expand into other U.S. cities, as well as Tokyo, in the future.

To learn more about the autonomous vehicle industry, check out this graphic visualizing which companies are permitted to test fully-autonomous cars in California as of July 2024.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 20:25

Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin To Halt Immigration Operations Without Probable Cause In California

Federal Judge Orders Trump Admin To Halt Immigration Operations Without Probable Cause In California

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction on July 11 temporarily blocking the Trump administration from carrying out immigration stops and arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause.

The decision by District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong followed a lawsuit brought by illegal immigrant advocacy groups, which accused the administration of targeting people in Southern California based on their race and of arresting people without a warrant amid the federal government’s ongoing efforts to end illegal immigration.

In a 52-page ruling, the judge ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stop detaining people based on their race, spoken language or accent, occupation, or presence in specific locations such as bus stops.

Frimpong stated that the administration failed to provide the basis for any of the immigration stops and arrests carried out during the enforcement operations.

The judge determined that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in proving the immigration stops and arrests were based on the four “enumerated factors” and lacked “reasonable suspicion” that the individuals targeted were illegal immigrants.

“The factors that defendants appear to rely on for reasonable suspicion seem no more indicative of illegal presence in the country than of legal presence—such as working at low-wage occupations such as car wash attendants and day laborers. This is insufficient and impermissible, and is the proper subject of an injunction,” Frimpong stated.

Frimpong also ordered DHS to provide detainees allegedly held in a room known as “B-18,” located in the basement of a federal building in downtown Los Angeles, with access to “confidential telephone calls” with legal representatives and legal assistants at no cost.

“Such legal telephone calls shall not be screened, recorded, or otherwise monitored,” the judge stated.

DHS is also required to allow legal visitation for detainees seven days a week, with a minimum of eight hours per day on weekdays and at least four hours per day on weekends, according to the ruling.

In an emailed statement to The Epoch Times, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the judge was “undermining the will of the American people” with the recent ruling.

“America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists—truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities,” McLaughlin stated. “Law and order will prevail.”

The suit, which alleges that immigration raids violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of thousands of people, was brought on July 2 by multiple civil and immigration rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundation of Southern California.

In the lawsuit, the groups alleged that brown-skinned individuals had suddenly been approached and pulled aside by federal agents “with a show of force” and were made to answer questions about their names and origins.

Such encounters allegedly could lead to arrests if the individuals targeted “hesitate, attempt to leave, or do not answer the questions to the satisfaction of the agents,” even though the agents allegedly may not have had warrants to detain them, according to the court filing.

DHS has denied accusations of racial profiling, calling it a “disgusting” smear tactic against law enforcement officers. McLaughlin said on July 3 that “enforcement operations are highly targeted, and officers do their due diligence” before making arrests.

“All detainees are provided with proper meals, medical treatment, and have opportunities to communicate with lawyers and their family members,” McLaughlin stated.

DHS stated on June 26 that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in Los Angeles have resulted “in the arrest of criminal illegal aliens—with convictions ranging from murder, pedophilia, fentanyl trafficking, spousal abuse, sexual assault, and armed robbery.”

Protests against ICE operations erupted in Los Angeles on June 6, following the arrest of dozens of illegal immigrants in the city as part of the Trump administration’s mass deportation operation. To quell the protests, which devolved into riots in certain areas, President Donald Trump deployed members of the National Guard and Marines while California Gov. Gavin Newsom objected to the deployment.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 19:50

North Korea Sends 6,000 Engineers, Construction Workers To Rebuild Russia’s Kursk

North Korea Sends 6,000 Engineers, Construction Workers To Rebuild Russia’s Kursk

The Moscow-Pyongyang bromance continues, based on mutual defense objectives and the landmark agreement struck between Presidents Putin and Kim Jong-Un last summer.

As part of the latest in official trips and exchanges Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was hosted by Kim during a visit to North Korea, where Pyongyang reaffirmed its strong backing of Russia’s war in Ukraine.

AFP/Getty Images

Last month state media aired images for the first time of flag-draped coffins of North Korean troops slain in the context of the Ukraine war returning by military transport plane to Pyongyang.

Russia’s defense ministry ministry shared footage of Kim and FM Lavrov shaking hands and embracing on Saturday. Lavrov said, “We exchanged views on the situation around the Ukraine crisis… Our Korean friends reaffirmed their unwavering support for all the goals of the special military operation, as well as the actions of Russia’s leadership and armed forces.”

While it has become well-publicized that there are over 10,000 DPRK troops assisting Russian forces, particularly in Kursk and it Russia’s southern border areas, it’s less known that Pyongyang has agreed to send 6,000 engineers and construction workers to aid in rebuilding efforts in Russian-controlled areas.

US and South Korean intelligence have been closely monitoring these developments, and  have raised alarms that Pyongyang may be seeking advanced Russian military technology in return.

Last year South Korean officials alleged, “It is understood that North Korea has been provided with related equipment and anti-aircraft missiles to strengthen Pyongyang’s weak air defense system.”

Russia and North Korea actually share a tiny border in the far east, allowing transfers of heavy defense equipment by train. 

Fresh images of Lavrov greeting Kim, with both all smiles…

It’s also believed that regular military flights go between the capitals, but trains allow for the easier transport of many tons of ammo and arms, such as artillery shells, and can be accomplished with less awareness of Western intelligence agencies.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 18:05

“I Have A Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence

“I Have A Wonderful Opportunity”: Justice Jackson’s Cathartic Jurisprudence

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I wrote recently about the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has drawn the ire of colleagues in opinions for her rhetoric and extreme positions.

Many have expressed alarm over her adherence to what has been described by a colleague as an “imperial judiciary” model of jurisprudence. Now, it appears that Jackson’s increasingly controversial opinions are serving a certain cathartic purpose for the far-left Biden appointee.

On ABC News, Jackson stated, “I just feel that I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”

Her colleagues have not entirely welcomed that sense of license.

The histrionic and hyperbolic rhetoric has increased in Jackson’s opinions, which at times portray her colleagues as abandoning not just the Constitution but democracy itself.

Her dissent in the recent ruling on universal injunctions drew the rebuke of Justice Amy Coney Barrett over what was described as “a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.” Barrett wrote:

“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.”

Jackson, however, clearly feels that opinions are a way for her to opine on issues of the day.

She is not alone. Across the country, liberal judges have been adding their own commentary to decisions in condemning Trump, his supporters, and his policies.

previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary.

District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.

Later, Chutkan again added her own commentary when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. She acknowledged that she could not block the pardons but proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”

Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.

Last week, Mehta had a straightforward question of jurisdiction concerning a challenge to the denial of grants by the Trump Administration. While correctly dismissing the challenge, Mehta decided to add his own commentary on Trump’s priorities and policies:

“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”

For Justice Jackson, her opinions have at times left her isolated on the Court. Weeks ago, Jackson and Sotomayor were alone in dissent over the defiance of a district court judge of the Court’s decision on universal injunctions. To her credit, Justice Elena Kagan (who voted with Sotomayor and Jackson in dissent in the earlier case) voted with her conservative colleagues in rebuking Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.

Kagan joined in the reversal of Murphy’s conflicting order and wrote the new order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”

This week, Jackson lost even Sotomayor and stood alone in her dissent in support of an injunction over plans to downsize the government. Sotomayor observed that the Trump order only ordered for agencies to plan for such downsizing and said that the courts could hardly enjoin such policy preparations in the Executive Branch.

However, Jackson could and would.

The controversial position of Jackson on the Court is not due to her liberal views. We have had many such liberal jurists. The difference is how Jackson views her role as a justice.

The danger is not confined to opinions. For years, justices have yielded to the temptations of public speaking before supportive groups. I have long been a critic of what I called the era of “celebrity justices” where members seem to maintain political constituencies in public events.

Such speeches can not only undermine the integrity of the Court by discussing matters that may come before it, but they can create a desire to maintain the adoration of supporters. The greatest danger is that justices will consciously or subconsciously pander to their bases with soundbites and inflammatory rhetoric.

Judicial advocacy from the bench has been a concern since the founding. Article III can have a corrosive impact on certain jurists who come to view themselves as anointed rather than appointed. Most judges and justices are acutely aware of that danger and struggle to confine their rulings to the merits of disputes, avoiding political questions or commentary.

The “opportunity to tell people how I feel” can become a slippery slope where opinions become more like judicial op-eds. The Court is not a cable show. The price of the ticket to being “one of nine” is that you should speak only through your opinions and only on the narrow legal matter before you.

Opinions must remain “opportunities” to do simple justice, not a supreme editorial.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right.”

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 17:30

Air India Crash: Fuel Switches On Boeing 787 “Cutoff” During Takeoff 

Air India Crash: Fuel Switches On Boeing 787 “Cutoff” During Takeoff 

Just one month ago—and days before the Paris Air Show—a horrific crash involving Air India Flight 171, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner, was captured on CCTV. The footage showed the widebody aircraft taking off down a runway in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad, but shortly after rotation, it suddenly lost altitude and crashed into a residential area, sparking all sorts of speculation about what may have caused the crash that killed 260 people. Since then, Indian authorities have remained largely silent—until now.

A newly released preliminary report may finally shed light on what went wrong. Spoiler alert: it’s great news for Boeing. Early findings suggest the mid-air disaster was not due to a mechanical flaw in the engines, but likely the result of human error.

On Saturday, India’s Air Accident Investigation Bureau released a report revealing that the fuel control switches on the Boeing 787 were set to “cutoff” just seconds after takeoff, explaining why the widebody jet failed to gain sufficient lift after rotation, as thrust could not be produced with Jet A fuel supply cut off. 

“The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 Knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec. The Engine N1 and N2 began to decrease from their takeoff values as the fuel supply to the engines was cut off,” the report read. 

The report continued, “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cutoff. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

By the time the one pilot realized the fuel had been cut off and flipped the switches back to “run,” it was too late. Although the engines began relight sequences, the aircraft had already reached its peak speed of 180 knots at just a few hundred feet of altitude—leaving no time for trust recovery. 

More details from the report:

As perthe EAFR, the Engine 1 fuel cutoff switch transitioned from CUTOFF to RUN at about 08:08:52 UTC. The APU Inlet Door began opening at about 08:08:54 UTC, consistent with the APU Auto Start logic. Thereafter at 08:08:56 UTC the Engine 2 fuel cutoff switch also transitions from CUTOFF to RUN. When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engines full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight and thrust recoverysequence of ignition and fuel introduction.

The EGT was observed to be rising for both engines indicating relight. Engine 1’s core deceleration stopped, reversed and started to progress to recovery. Engine 2 was able to relight but could not arrest core speed deceleration and re-introduced fuel repeatedly to increase core speed acceleration and recovery. The EAFR recording stopped at 08:09:11 UTC.

At about 08:09:05 UTC, one of the pilots transmitted “MAYDAYMAYDAY MAYDAY”.

The report does not explain why the switches were flipped and points to no mechanical issues or bird strike. It does, however, suggest a focus on the pilots’ actions. The first officer was flying at the time.

As we’ve previously noted, this marks the first-ever hull loss of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner since the aircraft entered service in 2011. 

At the Paris Air Show, one of the aerospace industry’s biggest events, held about a week after the crash, Boeing kept a low profile while the investigation into Flight 171 was ongoing. 

Shawn Pruchnicki, a former airline accident investigator and aviation expert at Ohio State University, told The New York Times: “For example, on the 787 and probably more airliners these days, the switches themselves — you can’t shut them off without actually lifting them up. So there’s a little mechanical gate built into the switch — you have to lift it up over this little gate. So you can’t just bump it.”

The good news for Boeing is that the investigation is pointing toward human error as the contributing factor in the crash.

*   *   * 

Read The Full Report: 

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 16:55

Newborns To Get $1,000 ‘Trump Accounts’ – Here’s How It Works

Newborns To Get $1,000 ‘Trump Accounts’ – Here’s How It Works

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

The Republican reconciliation package, better known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, introduced Trump Accounts for newborns, which were previously dubbed MAGA Accounts, or “Money Account for Growth and Advancement.”

The accounts are new tax-advantaged investment vehicles comparable to individual retirement accounts, prefunded with $1,000 from the Treasury Department for every child born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Children born before this year will also be eligible, but not for the initial $1,000 seed money.

Parents will be eligible to contribute up to $5,000 annually, including up to $2,500 tax-free from a parent’s employer. The money must be invested in a broad stock market index, and earnings will grow tax-deferred until the account holder withdraws the funds.

As part of the new pilot program, parents must have Social Security numbers and be authorized to work in the United States. Families can choose to open a Trump Account at a financial institution, or the federal government will automatically enroll eligible children upon tax filing, with the option to opt out. There are no income requirements.

“It’s a pro-family initiative that will help millions of Americans harness the strength of our economy to lift up the next generation, and they’ll really be getting a big jump on life,” President Donald Trump stated at a June 9 White House event. 

Economists say the children will likely profit from the U.S. stock market’s upward trajectory.

One paper by the Milken Institute estimates that $1,000 accounts would balloon in value over time. After 20 years, researchers project that they will increase to more than $8,000.

This is plausible. Over the last 20 years, for instance, the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen more than 300 percent.

Once beneficiaries turn 18, they can withdraw half of the funds for “qualified purposes,” such as paying for tuition, job training, buying a first home, or starting a business. If the money is used for non-qualified expenditures, it will be taxed as ordinary income.

At age 25, they can access the full balance for specific reasons—a non-qualified expense would be taxed as ordinary income. After the account holder turns 31, the account is terminated, and the full balance can be withdrawn for any purpose; a long-term capital gains tax is then applied.

What Is Being Said About Trump Accounts

Experts say the program will encourage saving for a child’s future, promote financial literacy, and reduce wealth inequality.

“The program could also increase financial literacy of participants and their parents, which in turn would likely increase savings rates and wealth creation,” the Milken Institute paper said. “Since all newborns would receive the grants, the program would reduce wealth inequality.”

Critics say that it does little to assist new parents.

The Institute for Family Studies says that Trump Accounts do little to help families in the early years of parenthood, “when incomes are variable and expenses higher.”

“This is a policy that aims to boost the amount of savings held by teenagers, which may or may not be a laudable goal, but is far from a targeted pro-family approach,” the group said in a report.

Economists say it adds yet another layer to an already complex landscape of savings account options.

“The tax code provides for at least 11 tax-advantaged savings vehicles, each with different rules, limitations, and regulations,” Tax Foundation economists said in a June 11 report.

Wall Street in New York City on April 4, 2025. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

For example, a popular savings instrument for families is the 529 college savings plan. This program is designed specifically to cover the costs of attending college or university, such as tuition, fees, books, and room and board. Additionally, 529s offer various other features, including no annual limit, tax-free growth, and no age cap.

Ultimately, a Trump Account would offer more flexibility for general wealth-building while 529 plans are targeted for education savings.

“The addition of the Trump Accounts would further complicate savings for taxpayers who would have to keep track of yet another account,” the Tax Foundation economists said.

Instead, the government could offer universal tax-neutral savings accounts for taxpayers, they said.

Corporate America Pledges Support

Several companies have already pledged to participate in the savings account plan.

Michael Dell, CEO of Dell Technologies, said at a June White House business roundtable event that his company will match the government’s contributions “dollar for dollar to every child born to a Dell team.”

“This isn’t just a new investment,” Dell said in a statement. “This is an investment in our people, their families, our communities, and America’s future. And it embodies our core belief that opportunity should begin at birth.”

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi, and Altimeter Capital CEO Brad Gerstner also voiced support for the program.

“When everyone realizes they can be an owner, it unites our country around free-market principles and unleashes the next generation of American success,” Gerstner said.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 16:20

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass Promises Illegal Aliens Cash Amid ICE Raids

L.A. Mayor Karen Bass Promises Illegal Aliens Cash Amid ICE Raids

Ah, California. With U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents’ continued raids throughout Southern California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass announced Friday that undocumented migrants in the city will receive prepaid cash cards funded by philanthropic donors.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the mayor stated that the aid would amount to “a couple hundred” dollars per recipient and emphasized that “money will not come from city coffers but from philanthropic partners.”

The program is set to begin within the week. As reported by the Times, the cash cards “should be available in about a week,” and will be distributed “by immigrants rights groups such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.” The mayor’s office added that “the city will coordinate between philanthropists and organizations distributing the cards,” the Times said.

Bass described the fear and uncertainty that some undocumented residents are experiencing in the wake of heightened immigration enforcement. She said there were migrants “who don’t want to leave their homes,” and are “not going to work.”

The announcement came during a press conference in which Bass signed an executive order “directing all city departments to ‘bolster protocols’ and training on how to comply with the city’s sanctuary policy,” according to the Times.

This policy action follows a separate declaration from Bass on July 8, when she announced that the city would be “joining a private class action civil lawsuit” in response to ICE raids conducted under President Donald Trump’s administration.

The developments underscore Los Angeles’s ongoing resistance to federal immigration enforcement and reflect its broader sanctuary city stance, even as tensions rise over the legality and scope of such local initiatives.

Tyler Durden
Sat, 07/12/2025 – 15:45