AllUnity, a joint stablecoin venture by asset manager DWS and banking giant Deutsche Bank, received a license from the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), according to a Wednesday announcement.
BaFin has granted an E-Money Institution (EMI) license to AllUnity. With the license, the company plans to issue a regulated and BaFin-licensed euro-pegged stablecoin, EURAU, in compliance with the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) framework.
AllUnity said EURAU will feature institutional-grade proof-of-reserves and financial reporting.
The initiative, which also involves US-based Galaxy Digital, aims to provide euro-denominated digital assets that integrate seamlessly into the workflows of regulated institutions, fintech platforms and enterprise treasuries. Amsterdam-based Flow Traders will serve as the project’s liquidity provider.
The announcement comes as Europe emerges as a key battleground in the global stablecoin race, following the full implementation of MiCA on Dec. 30, 2024.
Mid-April reports revealed that the market cap of Circle’s MiCA-compliant stablecoin Euro Coin was growing quickly.
Circle’s stablecoins likely benefited from the implementation of MiCA, with Euro Coin and USDC reaping the rewards of its regulatory-friendly approach. The company’s stablecoins are the top euro and US dollar-pegged stablecoins that comply with MiCA.
Still, CoinMarketCap data shows that USDt remains the undisputed market leader, with a market cap of under $158 billion. USDt has a significant lead over the second-largest stablecoin, USDC, with a market cap of less than $62 billion.
Data is for 2023 and shows the share of civilian noninstitutionalized population with health coverage, public or private.
Cities With the Highest Rates of Health Insurance Coverage
In this table, we show the top U.S. metro areas by share of residents with health insurance.
Amherst, Massachusetts was the most insured metro area in the U.S. in 2023, with 98.4% of its residents covered under some sort of health insurance.
The cities with the highest rates of health insurance coverage are mostly concentrated in Massachusetts—one of the top states by median income and average hourly wage—and the Midwest.
Massachusetts is also one of the most highly educated states, which has shown to have a correlation with health insurance coverage.
Cities With the Lowest Rates of Health Insurance Coverage
Below we show the bottom U.S. metro areas by share of residents with health insurance.
Laredo, a border city in Southern Texas was the metro area with the lowest share of residents with health insurance at 70.7%.
Texas dominates the bottom of the ranking, with 7 of the 10 lowest-coverage metro areas. Many border cities including Laredo, McAllen (74.7%), and Brownsville (76.5%) have some of the lowest rates of insured populations.
Texas is one of 10 states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.
It also has some of the highest health care insurance costs in the country, which contributes to its relatively lower share of insured residents.
To learn health care insurance in the U.S., check out this graphic that visualizes life expectancy and health spending per capita across developed nations.
Poland is set to reinstate temporary controls on its borders with both Germany and Lithuania, a decision that has already drawn a reaction from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced the measure on Tuesday, stating: “We have decided that we are restoring temporary control on the border of Poland with Germany and Poland with Lithuania,” adding that the Polish Ministry of the Interior and Administration is currently preparing the necessary implementation of the law.
He said the new border controls are designed to “limit and reduce the uncontrolled flow of migrants back and forth.”
Recently, a number of videos have displayed German police dumping migrants across the border, prompting Poles to set up citizen patrols at various border points. The situation remains volatile.
🇵🇱 Two days ago, 30 Poles stood at the Polish-German border at Lubieszyn vowing to tackle illegal immigration. Two were temporarily detained by German police.
They vowed to be back each day and that “soon there will be hundreds of us.”
In addition, Tusk’s main opposition, Poland’s Law and Justice party (PiS), continues to hit him hard over the issue.
”Germany regularly transfers illegal migrants to our side. The state has abdicated, and chaos and impunity are growing day by day. Officers lack the tools to act. They have been left to fend for themselves. The cardboard state has failed once again. Ordinary people—citizens—are starting to organize to defend the border. And we will not leave them alone,” wrote PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński.
He added that “Parliamentarians and activists of Law and Justice will travel to the border. We will support those who fight for the safety of our families. We demand immediate action: a ban on entry to the territory of Poland for people from the Middle East and North Africa, and the restoration of random checks at the border with Germany. Poland’s security is non-negotiable.”
Niemcy regularnie przerzucają nielegalnych migrantów na naszą stronę. Państwo abdykowało, a chaos i bezkarność rosną z dnia na dzień.
Funkcjonariusze nie mają narzędzi, by działać. Zostali zostawieni sami sobie. Państwo z dykty zawiodło po raz kolejny. To zwykli ludzie –…
Tusk revealed that he had engaged in multiple discussions with the German chancellor, conveying that “Poland’s patience in this matter is not unlimited,” particularly in light of altered practices that complicate determining the rightful return of individuals to Poland.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, commenting on the development on Tuesday, affirmed Germany’s “close cooperation with Poland in the field of border control.”
He further emphasized Germany’s commitment to preserving the Schengen Area, but underscored that “it is only able to function if it is not abused by criminals who smuggle migrants.”
🇵🇱🇩🇪”That’s how the f**king German police work.”
Tensions are rising at German-Polish border crossings as German police are accused of dumping migrants on Polish territory.
Notably, following Merz’s election victory, Germany set up various border control checkpoints across the country’s borders. In many cases, many of these migrants are being rejected at the border by German police. Poles apparently want them to keep moving onward into German territory, which is fueling tensions.
Meanwhile, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Kestutis Budrys, speaking at a press conference in Vilnius, disclosed that he had been informed by Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski on Monday evening of Poland’s intention to introduce increased controls on the Lithuanian-Polish border.
Budrys stressed the importance of assessing “the actual numbers, dynamics, number of detained illegal migrants in the territory of Lithuania and Poland. Some data we already have.”
He concluded by stating the need to establish effective measures that “will not violate our common interest in the free movement of people, and will also contribute to our pursuit of strong and hard protection of the external border of the European Union and NATO.”
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, the growth by up to 124 percent was largely driven by millionaires immigrating to the locations, the researchers concluded.
Malta’s and Montenegro‘s investment for citizenship schemes are playing a role here as well as the two countries’ mild climate and natural beauty which is attracting the super-rich and has led to a boom in luxury real estate and other lux offerings.
The United Arab Emirates has long been known as a luxury destination for expats and holiday-makers and like the two former countries also features a tax regime favorable to millionaires.
Poland, China and India meanwhile feature among the top 8 of the countries with the fastest-growing millionaire population in relative terms mostly independent of immigration.
All countries have experienced strong economic growth and modernization over the course of the past decades.
Their large workforces have attracted foreign and domestic investments as the nations are moving toward middle and high income status. China and India, however, also feature among the countries with the largest net emigration of millionaires, surpassed in 2024 only by the United Kingdom.
Turkiye sees an opportunity to turbocharge its rise as a Eurasian Great Power along Russia’s entire southern periphery in ways that autonomously align with American grand strategic interests…
Russian-Azerbaijani relations are in trouble as a result of two scandals. The first concerns the recent police raid against suspected ethnic Azeri criminals in Yekaterinburg, during which time two of them died in circumstances that are now being investigated. That prompted Baku to officially complain to Moscow, after which a vicious infowar campaign was launched on social media and even among some publicly financed outlets as well alleging that Russia is “Islamophobic”, “imperialist”, and “persecuting Azeris”.
This was shortly thereafter followed by a police raid on Sputnik’s office in Baku, which had been operating in a legal gray zone after the authorities moved to effectively shut it down in February, thus resulting in the detainment of several Russians. That earlier decision was suspected to be connected to Azerbaijan’s displeasure with Russia’s response to late December’s airline tragedy in the North Caucasus that was caused by a Ukrainian drone attack at the time. Readers can learn more about it here and here.
Before determining who’s responsible for the latest trouble in bilateral ties, it’s important to recall the larger context within which all of this is unfolding. Prior to late December’s incident, Russian-Azerbaijani relations were proceeding along a very positive trajectory in accordance with the strategic partnership pact that President Ilham Aliyev agreed to with Putin on the eve of the special operation in late February 2022. That built upon Russia’s role in mediating an end to the Second Karabakh War in November 2020.
More recently, Putin visited Baku last August, the significance of which was analyzed here and here. This was followed by Aliyev visiting Moscow in October in connection with the CIS Heads of State Summit. Shortly before late December’s airline tragedy, Aliyev then gave an extended interview to Rossiya Segodnya head Dmitry Kiselyov in Baku, where he elaborated on Azerbaijan’s multi-aligned foreign policy and newfound suspicions of the West’s regional intentions towards the South Caucasus.
On that topic, the Biden Administration sought to exploit Armenia’s loss in the Second Karabakh War to more radically turn it against Russia and thus transform the country into a joint French-US protectorate for dividing-and-ruling the region, which worsened relations with Azerbaijan. The Trump Administration appears to be reconsidering that, however, and might have even agreed to let Armenia become a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate instead. It’s this perception that’s driving the latest unrest in Armenia.
From Russia’s perspective, the French-US protectorate scenario could spark another regional war that might spiral out of control with unpredictable consequences for Moscow if they weaponize the revival of Armenian revanchism. Similarly, the Azeri-Turkish protectorate scenario could turbocharge Turkiye’s rise as a Eurasian Great Power if it leads to an expansion of its influence (especially military) in Central Asia. The ideal scenario is therefore for Armenia to return to its traditional status as a Russian ally.
Having explained the context within which the latest trouble is unfolding, it’s now time to determine who’s responsible. Objectively speaking, the Azerbaijani authorities overreacted to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which signaled to civil society that it’s acceptable (at least for now) to wage a vicious infowar campaign against Russia. Some officials with an unclear connection to Aliyev then authorized the raid on Sputnik’s office as an escalation under the implied pretext of an asymmetrical response.
Given the ambiguity about Aliyev’s role in Azerbaijan’s overreactions, it’s premature to conclude that he decided to jeopardize the strategic ties with Russia that he himself cultivated, though he must still take responsibility even if mid-level officials did this on their own. That’s because Baku’s official complaint to Moscow and its raid on Sputnik’s office are state actions, unlike the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg, which is a local action. He’ll thus likely have to talk to Putin sometime soon to resolve everything.
The abovementioned observation doesn’t explain why mid-level officials might have overreacted to the Yekaterinburg police raid, which can be attributed to the deep-seated resentment that some have against Russia and speculative foreign influence. Regarding the first, some Azerbaijanis (but importantly not all and seemingly not the majority) harbor such sentiments, while the second might be linked to the scenario of the US letting Armenia becoming a joint Azeri-Turkish protectorate.
To elaborate, the US and France would struggle to turn Armenia into their own joint protectorate due to Georgia successfully repelling several rounds of Biden-era Color Revolution unrest, which aimed to pressure the government into opening up a “second front” against Russia and toppling it if it refused.
The military logistics required for turning Armenia into a bastion from which they could then divide-and-rule the region therefore are no longer reliable since they could only realistically run through Georgia.
Accordingly, the Trump Administration might have decided to cut their predecessor’s strategic losses by “giving” Armenia to Turkiye and Azerbaijan, which would repair the troubled ties that he inherited with both. In exchange, the US might have requested that they take a harder line towards Russia if the opportunity emerges, knowing that neither will sanction it since that would harm their own economies but hoping that a future situation would develop to serve as the pretext for escalating political tensions.
Mid-level officials wouldn’t be privy to such talks, but the aforesaid speculative request could have trickled down to them from their superiors, some of whom might have implied state approval for overreacting to any forthcoming “opportunity”. This sequence of events could bestow Aliyev with the ability to “plausibly deny” his role in events as part of a de-escalation deal with Putin. The whole purpose of this charade might be to signal to Russia that a new order is forming in the broader region.
As was earlier explained, that order could be a Turkish-led one upon Ankara and Baku subordinating Armenia as their joint protectorate, after which they’d streamline military logistics across its territory to turn the “Organization of Turkic States” (OTS) into a major force along Russia’s entire southern periphery. To be clear, the OTS isn’t controlled by the West, but its Turkish leader and increasingly equal Azerbaijani partner could still autonomously advance the West’s strategic agenda vis-à-vis Russia in that scenario.
Just like the US and France have unreliable military logistics to Armenia, so too does Russia, so it could struggle to deter an Azerbaijani(-Turkish?) invasion of its nominal but wayward CSTO ally if Baku (and Ankara?) exploits its latest unrest (such as if Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan falls). Moreover, the most optimal branch of the North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) runs through Azerbaijan, which could block it if Russia takes decisive action in defense of Armenia (however limited due to the special operation).
To be clear, Russia has no intention to fight Azerbaijan, but Azerbaijan’s overreaction to the recent police raid in Yekaterinburg might be a ploy to preemptively craft the perception that Russia “backed down” as a result if Moscow doesn’t take decisive action to deter Baku if regional tensions over Armenia worsen. Had it not been for that raid, then perhaps some other pretext would have been exploited or concocted, but the point is that Russia and Azerbaijan have polar opposite visions of Armenia’s geopolitical future.
That same future is pivotal for the future of the broader region as was written, but Russia has limited means for shaping the course of events due to its complex strategic interdependence with Azerbaijan vis-à-vis the NSTC and its understandable military prioritization of the special operation. The preceding constraints are self-evident, and Aliyev (and Erdogan?) might be preparing to take advantage of them, emboldened as he(/they?) might be by Russia’s perceived setback in Syria after Assad’s downfall.
Azerbaijan is aware of its irreplaceable role in turbocharging allied Turkiye’s rise as Eurasian Great Power, which is dependent on subordinating Armenia in order to then streamline the OTS’ military logistics between Asia Minor and Central Asia via the South Caucasus. If Aliyev came to believe that his country has a brighter future as part of a Turkish-led regional order instead of a Russian-led one, especially if the US signaled approval of this as speculated, then Baku’s overreaction to recent events makes more sense.
The Moscow-mediated Armenian-Azerbaijani ceasefire of November 2020 calls for the creation of a Russian-controlled corridor across Armenia’s southern Syunik Province, which Baku calls the “Zangezur Corridor”, for connecting both parts of Azerbaijan. Pashinyan hitherto refused to implement this due to pressure from the West and the Armenian diaspora therein, but if Trump decided to “give” Armenia to Azerbaijan and Turkiye instead, then he might do it but only after squeezing Russia out of this route.
Russian control would prevent Turkiye from streamlining its military logistics to Central Asia through this corridor for the purpose of replacing Russia’s influence there with its own as part of a grand strategic powerplay that autonomously aligns with the Western agenda in the pivotal Eurasian Heartland. Azerbaijan (and Turkiye?) might therefore invade Syunik if their envisaged client Pashinyan either flip-flops on squeezing Russia out or before Russia is invited into there by a new government if he falls.
The consequences of Turkiye obtaining unhindered military access to Central Asia through either sequence of events could be disastrous for Russia since its influence there is already being challenged by Turkiye, the EU, and even the UK, which just signed a two-year military agreement with Kazakhstan. That country, with whom Russia shares the longest land border in the world, has been pivoting towards the West as was assessed here in summer 2023 and this troubling trend could easily accelerate in that event.
Reflecting on all this insight, the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations might therefore be part of a Turkish-US powerplay, one which Trump could have agreed to with Erdogan and Aliyev later jumped on board but might still have his doubts. That would account for his “plausibly deniable” role in Azerbaijan’s overreaction to recent events. If taken to its conclusion, this powerplay could risk Azerbaijan becoming Turkiye’s junior partner with time, which he’s thus far sought to avoid through his multi-alignment policy.
If that’s the case, then it might not be too late for Putin to avert this scenario so long as he can convince Aliyev that Azerbaijan has a brighter future as part of a different regional order, one that would center on Azerbaijan continuing its Russo-Turkish balancing act instead of turbocharging Turkiye’s rise. The NSTC could figure prominently in this paradigm, but the problem is that Azerbaijan’s ties with Iran and India are very strained right now, so he’d have to prospectively mediate a rapprochement for this to happen.
Anyhow, the point is that it’s premature to assume that the latest trouble in Russian-Azerbaijani relations is the new normal or that it might even precede a seemingly inevitable crisis, though both possibilities are nonetheless credible and should be taken seriously by the Kremlin just in case. The best-case scenario is that Aliyev and Putin soon hold a call to amicably resolve the issues that have abruptly toxified their ties otherwise the worst might be yet to come and it could be disadvantageous for both.
Tobacco-Free Future – Moving Forward Or Backwards?
In France, a new ban limiting smoking in several public outdoor places went into effect on July 1, marking a major step for the country once known as a nation of smokers.
Bhutan, the Himalayan nation, was the world’s first officially smoke-free country when it outlawed the import and sale of tobacco in 2004. Bhutan has become famous for its different approach to governance, which has been admired in the West, for example calculating gross national happiness or mandating that 60% of the country remain forested. But even the remote nation that cited Buddhist teachings as a reason for its tobacco ban has not been immune to outside influence and axed the majority of its ban in 2020 amid the coronavirus pandemic to stop smugglers which were spreading the disease. Since then, the country’s government has decided not to reinstate and instead focus on education and cessasion programs, as the ban did not actually lower smoking rates and instead created an environment free of warnings around the tobacco which was still available illegally.
More recently, New Zealand attempted to raise a smoke-free generation from 2027 onwards by not allowing anyone born in 2009 or later to legally purchase cigarettes once they turned 18, alongside many other anti-tobacco measures. The country’s approach was that of a more gradual phase-out rather than a sudden ban but its merits won’t be tested as a change in government prompted the law enacted in 2022 to be scrapped despite reportedly having widespread public support. A new conservative coalition government decided to change course after coming to power in 2023, reportedly at the request of the populist New Zealand First party. Tobacco revenue was consecutively tied to new tax cuts. This highlights another area of concern with tobacco bans and phase-outs: the cost of prevention and tax revenue losses in the short term, even though these are expected to be offset by lower public healthcare costs. However, the United Kingdom is currently mulling a similar ban that is yet to be enacted but enjoys government and public support as of now.
The New Zealand government meanwhile said that it remained committed to creating a smoke-free nation nevertheless. Several countries, including Portugal, Canada and Australia, have set similar goals, typically aiming to reduce the number of smokers to 5 percent or less in the next five to 15 years. The EU, for example, has set this date to 2040. One popular rule to inch closer to this goal has been to further limit smoking in public outdoor areas like restaurant and bar patios, beaches, parks, natural areas or even inner city streets. The aforementioned countries, sometimes on a state level, have introduced bans like these, as have several other nations around the world. Cities have also followed suit and a well-reported ban went into effect in Milan at the beginning of the year, outlawing smoking anywhere near other people, similar to the law in place in Costa Rica.
The WHO concludes that more than 6 billion people, or around 75 percent of the world population, are now covered by some kind of tobacco control measure, including graphic warnings on cigarette packages, increases in taxation, advertising bans and programs that help people quit smoking. According to the organization, less than 20 percent of the world population currently smokes, down from more than 32 percent in the year 2000. 80 percent of these people are located in middle or low income countries and are more likely males as smoking continues to be the biggest cause of preventable death globally.
Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a lawyer described as far-left, is poised to become a new judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, Germany’s top court, and it is very bad news for Germany’s conservatives. This new development could significantly increase the chances that a ban on the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party actually passes through the court.
The governing coalition, the Social Democrats (SPD) and the Christian Democrats (CDU), has agreed on the SPD candidate, who has gained public attention for her strong opinions. The news comes after the SPD voted on an AfD ban in a unanimous motion at the end of their three-day party congress last week.
Brosius-Gersdorf is on record that she wants a ban on the AfD, saying: “We are a resilient democracy. We have safeguards against anti-constitutional parties.”
A year ago, on the ZDF talk show “Markus Lanz” on July 25, 2024, Brosius-Gersdorf controversially expressed regret that an AfD ban “would not eliminate its supporters.”
When Lanz, puzzled, asked, “You don’t want to eliminate people?”, she replied, “Of course not.” However, she insisted on the possibility of depriving AfD members of their basic rights, including the right to be elected, stating, “We have the ability to deprive individuals of their basic rights.”
Following her expected appointment to Karlsruhe, where the Constitutional Court is headquartered, Brosius-Gersdorf is also considered a frontrunner for the position of President of the Federal Constitutional Court. That means the court, made up of 16 judges, would be led by the far-left judge, which could prove catastrophic for not only the AfD, but also present a major problem for libertarians, supporters of free speech, and social conservatives.
Governments come and go, but Brosius-Gersdorf will be in her position for a very long time, and she will wield enormous power.
Beyond her stance on the AfD, she was a strong advocate for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, arguing in 2021 that the German constitution, the Basic Law, already suggested that this would be a necessity. She wrote, “One can even consider whether there is now a constitutional obligation to introduce mandatory vaccination.” Furthermore, she stated, “It is the state’s responsibility to effectively protect the vast majority of the population, who have been voluntarily vaccinated, from their health (…) continuing to be threatened by the unvaccinated.”
Notably, it turned out that vaccination did not stop the spread of the illness, a contention by numerous health authorities that turned out to be absolutely false.
Her statements about mandatory vaccination have already led CDU Bundestag member Saskia Ludwig to declare Brosius-Gersdorf “unelectable” on Tuesday.
Unwählbar! Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf: „Es ist Aufgabe des Staates, die große Mehrheit der Bevölkerung, die freiwillig geimpft ist, wirksam davor zu schützen, dass ihre Gesundheit…weiterhin von Ungeimpften bedroht wird.“ #BVerfGhttps://t.co/DF2Si5gH4Qpic.twitter.com/WiEAm88QbM
There are other areas where Brosius-Gersdorf could prove a bane to conservatives and the right in Germany, including on social issues.
The designated constitutional judge has also called for the German Basic Law to adopt “gender-appropriate” language, as reported by German media outlet Apollo News. She argued that the generic masculine, as standard language, leads to “a conceptual underrepresentation of women,” and that the state is obligated to “choose a form of expression that does justice to the fundamental rights of women and persons of diverse genders, as well as to the constitution.”
This has to do with the German language, which has masculine and feminine words, and in many cases, there is an emphasis on the masculine form, which many German feminists reject as outdated.
It remains unclear why the CDU would back this candidate. Following protests from the SPD and the Greens, the CDU/CSU withdrew their nomination of conservative Federal Administrative Court judge Robert Seegmüller for the Federal Constitutional Court. They are now putting forward Federal Labor Court judge Günter Spinner. The SPD is also nominating Munich professor Ann-Katrin Kaufhold. For these candidates to be elected, the coalition factions, the SPD and the CDU/CSU, require a two-thirds majority, meaning the Greens and the Left Party must also agree.
Brosius-Gersdorf represents a serious obstacle to not only the AfD, but also the CDU on a range of issues. The CDU, for instance, has taken issue with gendered language, which is a hot cultural topic in Germany. If the CDU backs this candidate, it is likely to pay the price for years to come.
Before any potential AfD ban, the Bundestag must first vote to pass a ban proposal. So far, the CDU has rejected such a ban, with Chancellor Merz stating that it reeked of eliminating a political rival. Other top CDU officials have rejected a ban. However, if the CDU comes around to the idea, the Constitutional Court may be much more willing to pass such a ban under the potential leadership of Brosius-Gersdorf.
“Buckle The F**k Up”: Trumpworld Rages At GOP Holdouts After Tax Bill Stalls In House
Update (0018ET): Wednesday night came and went without the House GOP advancing the ‘Big Beautiful Bill Act’ to the floor for debate, after roughly a dozen Republicans stood their ground.
As such, things have officially gotten ugly – with longtime Trump aides Jason Miller and Chris LaCivita telling the holdouts that they can either vote with Trump, “or you can vote with the Democrats.”
“Buckle the fuck up,” said Miller, adding It’s a binary choice”
Top White House aide Stephen Miller, meanwhile, demanded that Republicans “stand with Trump” to show loyalty to the man who had peen persecuted by “the communist left.”
Earlier in the evening, a procedural vote on adopting the rule for floor consideration of the Big Beautiful Bill was open for more than 2.5 hours, as Speaker Mike Johnson scrambled convince the holdouts to vote yes.
Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert indicated she’s sticking with her fellow Freedom Caucus members on any rule vote.
“Not tonight,” she said, before several of the hard-liners huddled again, this time in Johnson’s office. -Politico
Rep. Thomas Massie told the NY Times that he switched his vote to ‘no’ on the rule because if it ends up being the only vote on the BBB, he doesn’t want to be on record as having voted for it.
“If it goes down, I can’t be a yes,” said Massie, who’s been a hard ‘no’ on the bill for weeks. That said, his comments seem to indicate that if his party is able to advance the procedural measure, he’d switch back and support bringing up the bill.
Needless to say, July 4th looks like a pipe dream from here – then again, we’ve seen these grifting gasbags shake a tail like nobody’s business when vacation is on the line.
* * *
Stay tuned… and maybe buy a hat or our personal favorite Anza knife?
Update (2300ET): A dramatic scene is unfolding on the House floor, as four Republicans have voted ‘nay’ on the Senate-revised version of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ – when House Speaker Mike Johnson could only afford three.
According to Fox News‘ Chad Pergram; ‘A 216-216 tie loses by rule. Dems got all of their members there and stuck together GOP needs to flip 1 mbr so long as other Republicans don’t vote no.’
So now the question is; will someone flip?
FOUR Republicans are voting against the rule vote: Reps. Andrew Clyde, Victoria Spartz, Keith Self, and Brian Fitzpatrick.
The first three often vote against rules, that block moving the bill forward. But Fitzpatrick, a moderate in a district Harris won, is a surprise.
— Marianna Sotomayor (@MariannaReports) July 3, 2025
* * *
Update (1450ET): Are we having fun yet? Major divisions within the House threaten to derail the Big Beautiful Bill, with Speaker Mike Johnson struggling to overcome resistance by fiscal conservatives.
Earlier in the day the House appeared ready to hold a test vote, however several conservative Republicans raised objections – suggesting that Johnson might not have the votes to move forward, given that he can only afford a handful of defections on the measure.
As of midday, at least two Republicans were a hard ‘no’ on the bill in its current form.
Meanwhile Rep. Thomas Massie says he has the votes to block it…
Thomas Massie enthusiastically tells me he has a “vote bloc of 10” Republican members who are NO’s on the Senate’s reconciliation bill.
President Trump, meanwhile, met with holdouts at the White House as Democrats and Republicans argued over the merits of the bill on the House floor.
At the end of the day, Johnson has little room for maneuvering – as any changes to the bill would send it back to the Senate for further deliberation that could drag on for weeks.
Members of the House Freedom Caucus are livid over measures added to the Senate that increases costs.
“The Senate doesn’t get to be the final say on everything. We’ve got to work this out,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Wednesday morning, adding that there are enough Republicans “right now” who wanted to reopen the bill and don’t care about the July 4 recess deadline.
More moderate Republicans objected to Medicaid cuts approved by the Senate that went deeper than the House’s May iteration.
* * *
After months of grinding negotiations, late-night Senate rewrites, and bruising intra-party fights, House Republicans are careening toward a moment of reckoning. Speaker Mike Johnson is pressing ahead this week with a vote on the party’s massive reconciliation package — a cornerstone of President Donald J. Trump’s second-term agenda — but signs of fracture within the Republican conference threaten to derail the plan just hours before the vote.
The legislation, a multi-trillion-dollar tax-and-spending overhaul, is the product of months of backroom dealing between House and Senate Republicans. If passed, it would represent the most significant domestic achievement of Trump’s presidency to date. But GOP leaders now face resistance from both flanks of their party, from hardline conservatives warning of fiscal betrayal, and moderates fearing political blowback over health care cuts.
“We’re working through everybody’s concerns and letting them know this is the best possible product we can produce,” Johnson told reporters Wednesday morning, conceding that he does not yet have the votes to pass even the procedural rule required to begin debate on the bill.
🚨Speaker Johnson this morning acknowledges he doesn’t have the votes to pass the rule yet —
“we’re working on all that right now” he tells @nicholaswu12
“working through everybody’s concerns and letting them know this is the best possible product we can produce.” https://t.co/W4jOpQ2ldF
The House is scheduled to reconvene at 9 a.m. today, with leadership aiming to move the legislation before the July 4 recess. But on Tuesday night, Johnson and his team were still scrambling. Members of the GOP whip team expressed alarm over the number of “no” votes on their tally sheets — including from lawmakers they had assumed were in support.
Two conservative members of the Rules Committee, Reps. Chip Roy of Texas and Ralph Norman of South Carolina, voted against advancing the bill Tuesday night, a warning sign of trouble ahead. A procedural vote, initially slated for Wednesday, may be delayed to Thursday due to both political uncertainty and widespread travel delays caused by thunderstorms snarling flights into Washington.
“We have fifty-one-and-a-half million foreign born people in this country,” Roy told Punchbowl News. “You clamp down on illegal immigration, which is what the president is doing, but you need to limit, slash and refocus legal immigration… legal immigration is part of the problem.”
Even Speaker Johnson admitted during a Fox News appearance Tuesday night that the vote might slip another day.
Hardliners Dig In
A cluster of House Freedom Caucus members are threatening to tank the bill, saying Johnson has abandoned the House’s original budget framework, one that paired $2 trillion in spending cuts with $4.5 trillion in tax cuts. The Senate-passed version, they argue, compromises too much.
FACT: The Senate OBBB increases deficits and violates the terms of the budget deal in the House.
FACT: The Senate OBBB guts the strong provisions to terminate the “green new scam” subsidies in the House bill.
FACT: The Senate OBBB removes key provisions we put in the bill to stop illegal aliens from getting Medicaid.
FACT: The Senate OBBB removes key provisions we put in the bill to stop taxpayer funding of transgender surgeries.
FACT: We can amend it, send it back, fix it, & pass both the tax cut extensions AND border provisions we all want to pass.
Happy to stay here every day until we get it right.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) said publicly that the bill is unlikely to pass “as is” and expressed agreement with Elon Musk, who labeled the proposal “bad.” Roy, meanwhile, raised alarm over the bill’s deficit projections. Norman has signaled he will vote no on both the rule and the bill itself.
Adding to the drama is a pro-Trump super PAC now running attack ads against Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, a frequent critic of the bill. And Sen. Thom Tillis’ (R-N.C.) unexpected retirement announcement — after opposing the Senate version — sent a ripple of caution through GOP ranks.
Moderates Waver
It’s not just the right causing trouble for Johnson. Several moderates from swing districts are voicing concerns over the bill’s Medicaid cuts and repeal of clean energy tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who represents a district Trump lost in 2020, is seen as a possible “no” vote due to Medicaid and energy concerns. Rep. David Valadao of California and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, both vulnerable members, are also being watched closely. Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC), the only practicing physician in Congress, has demanded guarantees that the bill’s $50 billion rural hospital fund will benefit struggling institutions like those in his district. “I actually still practice and take care of patients,” Murphy said. “The district that I represent is one of the poorest in the country.”
NC Rep. GREG MURPHY airing big concerns w/ the reconciliation bill this morning:
“I’m having a hard time getting the point where I can support the Senate package”
MURPHY says he needs “real guarantees” on how $50B rural hospital fund will be spent & that money will go to poor…
Reps. Glenn Grothman and Derrick Van Orden of Wisconsin have also raised alarms over the bill’s impact on rural hospitals. And several newly elected members, including Rob Bresnahan and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania, have raised similar concerns about Medicaid provisions.
Leadership Strategy: Trump at the Center
With time running short, House Republican leaders, including Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Whip Tom Emmer, are leaning heavily on Trump’s influence to lock in support. The president is scheduled to meet privately today with key GOP factions, including members of the House Freedom Caucus, to try and close the deal, Bloomberg reports. Johnson will remain at the Capitol holding separate meetings with undecided members.
The message from leadership: This may not be the bill Republicans dreamed of, but it’s the only one that can pass. “Despite what House Republicans hoped to see in this bill, this is what they face now. And it’s time to put it up for a vote,” one senior aide said.
As Punchbowl notes further, inside leadership circles, some are questioning whether the rule, let alone the final bill. can be passed.
Democrats, meanwhile…
House Democrats are unified in opposition and eager to tie the legislation to Republican vulnerabilities in the upcoming midterm elections.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told Punchbowl that the bill would haunt “every single swing-seat Republican” who votes for it. He pointed to steep Medicaid reductions and threats to rural health care access as political liabilities. “The American people do not trust the Republican Party with respect to health care,” Jeffries said. “The whole enterprise is a toxic scheme.”
On Thursday, Jeffries is expected to deliver a roughly one-hour speech on the House floor, a so-called “Magic Minute,” to lay out Democrats’ objections.
The stakes for Johnson and Trump could not be higher.
In its term just ended, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) may regulate weapons parts kits as “firearms.” The case was Bondi v. VanDerStok. It also is called the “ghost gun case.”
Under a congressional statute known as the Gun Control Act of 1968, “weapons” are subject to regulation as “firearms.” Weapons parts kits typically include most or all of the components necessary to build a gun, although the purchaser generally supplies the tools and, if necessary, a magazine.
The ATF argued that such kits are “weapons” and therefore “firearms.”
Strictly speaking, the only issue before the court was whether these kits fit within the statute’s meaning of the word “weapon.” The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was not under consideration—at least not directly.
Here’s what the Gun Control Act says: A “firearm” includes (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Thus, the statute authorized the ATF to regulate:
weapons
“starter guns”—a particular kind of incomplete weapon
specifically listed weapon parts: frames, receivers, and mufflers/silencers (more properly called “suppressors”)
destructive devices.
The kits generally do not include completed frames, completed receivers, or completed suppressors. Nor are they, by themselves, “destructive devices.” But the court ruled that they do qualify as “weapons.”
The vote among the justices was seven to two. The court’s opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. This division illustrates once again a point I have made many times before: The current Supreme Court is a very split bench. It is not, as the mass media often claim, one with a “6–3 conservative majority.”
A key part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion placed the word “weapon” into a technical class of words called “artifact nouns.” Justice Gorsuch pointed out that sometimes people refer to an unfinished artifact as if it were finished. Thus, an author might refer to his unfinished manuscript as “my novel.” In like manner, a “weapon” could include an unfinished kit that is more than merely a random collection of parts.
Problems With the Court’s Conclusion
In my view, the majority opinion was erroneous on several levels.
First: The foremost rule for reading a statute is to seek the intent of the legislature that adopted it. In the case of the Gun Control Act, you try to reconstruct the intent of Congress when it passed the law in 1968. There does not appear to be any history suggesting that Congress intended to include assembly kits in the definition of “weapon.”
Second: Another rule of interpretation is that in seeking the legislature’s intent, you should examine the normal meaning of key words in the statute when the statute was adopted. But the normal 1968 dictionary definition of “weapon” was “an instrument of offensive or defensive combat … [such] as a club, sword, gun, or grenade.” It did not include unfinished products—which is one reason Congress had to list those components (such as frames) that it did wish to include in the meaning of “weapon.”
Third: In construing a word or phrase in a statute, you also look at the context. Part of the context is the other language around the word or phrase.
As you can see from the portion of the statute quoted above, it does include some components (frames, receivers, suppressors). It also includes one category of incomplete weapon (starter guns). But it leaves out all others. A very well-recognized rule of interpretation tells us that when a law lists certain items, the law implicitly excludes others. Consequently, other components and unfinished instruments—including kits—are not covered.
Fourth: Another way of examining a statute’s context is to examine any law or law the statute superseded or supplemented. The 1968 Gun Control Act replaced an earlier law called the Federal Firearms Act. The Federal Firearms Act did cover component parts: It defined a “firearm” as “any weapon … designed to expel a projectile or projectiles by the action of an explosive … or any part or parts of such weapon.”
When passing the 1968 Gun Control Act, Congress could have continued regulation of “parts,” but it specifically chose not to do so. This also tells us that assembly kits are not “weapons” under the Gun Control Act.
Fifth: When construing a statute, you also apply legal rules and definitions that are so common that lawmakers presumably know about them. In VanDerStok, Justice Gorsuch relied on a specific category of words known as “artifact nouns.” But the phrase “artifact noun” was previously unknown to the law—a fact I verified by searching in the best-known legal database. It was not a category of which Congress was necessarily aware.
For all these reasons, the court should have concluded that the Gun Control Act’s definition of “weapon” does not include gun assembly kits. The ATF exceeded its power by trying to regulate something it had no authority to regulate.
What the Court Did
In 1968, only experts with specialized equipment could assemble guns. Weapons parts kits, along with the necessary assembly tools, became widespread only after the Gun Control Act was adopted. It appears that the court was trying to update the 57-year-old statute to meet modern conditions.
But updating federal statutes is not the job of appointed-for-life judges. It is a job for democratically-elected members of Congress. Under the Constitution, only Congress—not the judiciary—possesses what the Constitution calls “the legislative Power.”
Interpreting the Constitution
The ruling in VanDerStok shows how a court can amend a statute by changing the normal rules for interpreting it.
Justice Gorsuch is an outstanding jurist and usually does not make this kind of mistake. However, writers on the Constitution frequently do—that is, they invent new rules of interpretation to “prove” the Constitution says what they want it to say.
But the Founders wrote and adopted the Constitution with the understanding that it was to be applied using the rules of interpretation prevailing in their own day and, for the most part, still prevailing now. Moreover, Congress and state legislatures enact laws relying on the same assumption. Only by following normal rules of interpretation can judges be faithful to the law. When a court distorts those rules, it distorts the law.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Queens Driving School Busted For Running Bribe-for-License Scam For Illegal Immigrants
A Queens driving school bribed DMV employees to illegally fast-track driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants—many of whom couldn’t drive or speak English—according to Staten Island prosecutors.
T&E Driving School allegedly took cash from Chinese immigrants and paid off DMV examiners in Staten Island to skip required road tests, District Attorney Michael McMahon said Tuesday at a press conference announcing “Operation Road Test”, a joint investigation with Homeland Security and state officials, according to the NY Post.
“Our investigation found that T&E Driving School blatantly flouted the laws and procedures that are necessary to ensure the public safety on the road,” said George Ioannidis, assistant special agent in charge for Homeland Security Investigations in New York.
“As alleged, T&E utilized social media and strategic advertising to target exploited members of the Chinese community and guaranteed individual driver’s licenses regardless of their immigration status, language, and even their ability to operate a vehicle,” he added. “Moreover, these individuals were those who did not speak or understand English and may have believed that they all were taking necessary and legitimate steps.”
The scheme involved T&E owner Weixian Tan, secretary Weiwen Tan, employee Winnie Yang, and school driver Wenfeng Yang, who allegedly paid DMV examiners Aji Idicula, Tianna Rose Andolina, and Edward Tarik Queen to fraudulently approve licenses.
The NY Post writes that the examiners reportedly rubber-stamped applicants without administering road tests. “The number of tests given by an individual examiner can be about 1,500 a year,” said McMahon. “Two out of the three examiners have been working for four or five years, so we think this is just the tip of the iceberg.”
According to prosecutors, at least two dozen suspects are in custody, with another unnamed DMV employee included in a 49-page indictment. “We think that we are going to find hundreds if not thousands of people that have been part of this scam,” McMahon said.
He described the operation as “corrosively corrupt” and said DMV employees “brazenly betrayed their oaths of office.”
The defendants, facing charges of fraud, tampering, and theft, were arraigned and released without bail under New York’s 2019 bail reform laws. However, they were ordered to surrender their passports.
