President Trump said Saturday that an interim U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and wind down the four-month conflict could be signed as soon as Sunday. However, Tehran has pushed back on that timeline, signaling that no final decision has been made while Iranian officials continue to review the terms of a potential memorandum of understanding.

“The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, while claiming that Iran “no longer wants a Nuclear weapon.”

The president continued, “At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States.”

Pakistan and Qatar are mediating, with technical talks expected to follow any signing and last up to 60 days. The MOU is structured as a step-by-step framework, meaning the Hormuz maritime chokepoint will reopen first, followed by economic rewards for Iran as conditions are met.

Pakistan, which has served as one of the mediators, is preparing to sign the peace deal electronically, followed by technical-level talks next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He said those talks would last two months and focus on Iran’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the Iranian media outlet Fars News Agency reported earlier that Iran has not made a final call on a potential MOU with the U.S. Iranian authorities are still reviewing the political, legal, and technical details, with no final decision announced as of Sunday morning.

The urgency behind securing an MOU to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint is clear: the world is drifting dangerously close toward an energy cliff. Strategic petroleum reserves are being drawn down rapidly around the world to offset the loss of Gulf production, while China’s weakening fuel demand is helping to offset some of the broader supply shock.

Related:

• What If The Strait Of Hormuz Never Fully Reopens

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear Friday that Iran understands that terms related to its nuclear program will be finalized within 60 days of the initial agreement being signed. So in essence, this means Iran could get its wish of pushing nuclear negotiations back, only after the hot conflict has clearly ended. Iran has long sought to separate the issues of a final end to the war from consideration of its nuclear program.

Energy markets priced in de-escalation last week, with Brent crude futures sliding as much as  5.1% Friday and European gas dropped as much as 8.4% after Trump canceled planned new strikes on Iran.

IG’s weekend markets are pricing in a 50 bps decline in Brent crude when futures open on Sunday evening.

But throughput traffic through the Hormuz chokepoint remains far below pre-war levels, and a vessel was struck off Oman on Saturday. Normalization could take weeks, if not many months.

Bloomberg noted, “Roughly 140 ships passed through the narrow chokepoint each day before the conflict erupted.”

Here are the latest overnight headlines (courtesy of Bloomberg):

US-Iran Deal Progress

• Trump said on Saturday that a deal with Iran is scheduled to be signed on Sunday, claiming the Hormuz Strait will open immediately after signing and that Iran no longer wants nuclear weapons

• Iran contradicted Trump’s timeline, saying it is still reviewing the text and hasn’t announced a final decision, with authorities conducting a detailed assessment of political, legal, and technical dimensions

• Pakistan said on Saturday that an interim deal could be finalized within 24 hours and is preparing for electronic signing immediately after, followed by technical level talks next week

• A senior US official said on Friday there was an 80% or 85% chance an agreement gets signed soon, though some Iranian hardliners still want to kill any breakthrough

Draft Deal Terms

• According to a senior Iran official, the draft memorandum includes diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran and the release of $25 billion of Iran’s frozen assets

• The draft includes Iran immediately reopening the Hormuz Strait to all commercial vessels and the US lifting its naval blockade

• Tehran agrees in the draft that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons

• The draft includes a US oil sanctions waiver for Iran

• The final deal will be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides

• A central element is a step-by-step approach with the Strait of Hormuz reopened followed by Tehran getting economic rewards each time it meets US demands

Regional Tensions

• The Israeli military announced on Sunday it launched strikes on Beirut targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, with Netanyahu’s office saying the strikes were in response to Hezbollah attacks in northern Israel

• When Israel last struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, Iran responded with attacks

• US Central Command said on Saturday it shot down Iranian drones near the Strait of Hormuz

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with India’s External Affairs Minister on Saturday after US strikes left three Indian mariners dead, stressing that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from US forces

Nuclear Program Developments

• According to five sources familiar with US intelligence, Iran has sealed off its cache of near-bomb grade uranium and placed explosive mines near entrances to the site in recent weeks, making attempts to remove the uranium far riskier

Financial Arrangements

• The UAE has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, with four sources telling Reuters the total was $10 billion, more than $3 billion of which had already been delivered, though two other sources put the total at $20 billion

• The UAE denied reports on the Iran funds transfer, specifically denying allegations concerning $3 billion

Diplomatic Activity

• Trump will meet with leaders of France, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and India at the G7 summit in France, underscoring the outsized role the war in Iran continues to play

Khamenei Burial Plans

• Ali Khamenei, Iran’s former supreme leader killed in US-Israeli air strikes on February 28, is set to be buried at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad on July 9, with public funeral ceremonies in Tehran and Qom in preceding days

Saturday’s Iran Wrap

• President Trump Says Iran Peace Deal To Be Signed Sunday, Will Open Strait To All

Polymarket

“Any deal that kicks the can down the road on the most critical issues and is conditions-based would put the US and Iran exactly where they’ve been: a fragile ceasefire in name only that is routinely tested and prone to violence,” said Becca Wasser, defense lead for Bloomberg Economics.

One can only hope that an MOU, and eventually a credible path toward a real peace deal, is something Tehran actually follows. What was initially sold as a quick war by the Trump administration has now dragged on into its fourth month. Early in the conflict, the administration’s view was that the Hormuz chokepoint would not be sealed shut, yet that is exactly what happened. Since then, the conflict has turned into a giant game of Shahed drone whack-a-mole with the Iranians. The Trump team needs this conflict resolved quickly, not only to prevent another wave of inflationary pressure in energy markets and avert the world from sliding into an energy cliff, but also to repair the political optics ahead of the midterms.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

In the space of hours, Britain endured yet more random barbaric violence. A 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck on a quiet residential street in Burnley, Lancashire, and a 21-year-old man was murdered in Central Park, Chelmsford, Essex. These incidents form part of a relentless pattern of attacks that former Prime Minister Liz Truss directly links to mass migration policies and the deliberate undermining of British society.

Truss described institutions corrupted by leftist ideology that suppress facts about the root cause – mass migration – while left-wing politicians weaponise immigration to erode the nation state itself. The public is livid. The official response under Keir Starmer has been to target those exposing the problem rather than the problem itself.

On Friday afternoon, a 17-year-old girl was walking alone on a street in Burnley, a small town in northern England, when a man approached from behind and stabbed her in the back of the neck. Armed police responded swiftly. The victim was treated in hospital; her injuries were miraculously not life-threatening. A 30-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

??A 30-year-old man was filmed stabbing a 17-year-old girl in neck in Burnley, England.

Now, a video has been published which reportedly shows the man being arrested.

Follow: @RMXnews pic.twitter.com/X4B1c4be3g

– Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 12, 2026

Lancashire Police confirmed the attack and deployed extra patrols for community reassurance. Whle mainstream reports omitted key background details, GB News reporter Charlie Peters later stated that Lancashire Police confirmed the suspect is a British-born man of Pakistani heritage.

Lancashire Police has confirmed that a 30-year-old British-born man of Pakistani heritage has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck in Brierfield.

The force said that the girl’s injuries were not life-threatening. pic.twitter.com/vim5VueLLY

– Charlie Peters (@CDP1882) June 13, 2026

Video footage circulating online shows the unprovoked attack and the subsequent arrest. Public reaction has been one of fury and exhaustion at yet another random stabbing of a young girl in broad daylight.

Hours later, emergency services were called to Central Park in Chelmsford, Essex after reports of a serious assault. A 21-year-old man was found with critical injuries and pronounced dead at the scene. He had been stabbed.

BREAKING: Police arrest three teenage murder suspects after man dies in Essex park https://t.co/4qLToIKyuL

– GB News (@GBNEWS) June 13, 2026

Essex Police arrested three teenagers – a 14-year-old boy, a 17-year-old boy and an 18-year-old man – all from the Chelmsford area, on suspicion of murder. They remain in custody. Detective Inspector Lydia George described it as a deeply distressing incident and confirmed no further suspects were being sought.

Literally cannot keep up with the amount of these in the UK now. https://t.co/uVhLa8SpTq

– m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) June 13, 2026

These cases arrive amid a documented surge in such violence that has become impossible to ignore.

In widely shared commentary, Truss argued that recent violent attacks reveal an establishment corrupted by DEI priorities that place ideology above equal treatment under the law. She stated that the response to public concern is suppression of information and attacks on those highlighting the root causes.

Truss described how left-wing politicians actively encourage immigration to undermine the basis of society and Western civilisation. She said they seek to erode the family and the nation state. When British people say they have had enough, the reaction from Starmer’s government is to arrest and jail those who express concern.

“They want to undermine the family. They want to undermine the nation state. And people in Britain are saying ‘we’ve had enough of this,'” Truss urged.

“People are absolutely livid about what’s happening in our country,” she continued, adding “Our institutions have become corrupted… by the DEI mentality, rather than focusing on everybody being treated equally under the law. Their response is to try and suppress what’s happening… and attack those who are saying ‘why are these things happening?'”

The Lancashire and Essex incidents follow closely on the heels of the horrific attack in Belfast earlier this week. There, an African migrant from Sudan named Hadi Alodid was involved in a street assault on a vulnerable local man, Stephen Ogilvie, in which the attacker attempted to saw off the victim’s head in public.

Ogilvie, described as special needs and hard of hearing, had reportedly helped the migrants move into nearby accommodation just days earlier.

A local witness stated that two migrants were involved, not one, and that a second Sudanese man remained at large. The attack triggered widespread unrest in loyalist areas, with properties linked to recent arrivals targeted. Police rescued foreign nationals from burning buildings. The victim suffered life-changing injuries and remained in hospital.

And all of this comes in the wake of revelations surrounding the murder of Henry Nowak.

Official reports and much of the legacy media continue to downplay or omit perpetrator backgrounds in these cases, even as independent journalists and ordinary citizens document the pattern. The result is a two-tier information environment where facts about migration-linked violence are treated as dangerous while the violence itself continues.

When citizens notice the demographic reality of many perpetrators and the policy decisions that enabled their presence, the response is not honest examination but censorship and criminalisation of speech. Starmer’s government has shown particular zeal in pursuing those protesting the consequences of mass migration, while insisting that the public avert its gaze.

This is not an accident of policy. It is the predictable outcome of decades of globalist open-border ideology that prioritised abstract diversity over the concrete safety and cohesion of existing communities. The British people did not vote for this transformation. They were never asked.

Britain’s experience serves as a warning. Uncontrolled mass immigration, sold as compassion or economic necessity, has delivered neither safety nor prosperity for the native population in many areas. It has delivered parallel societies, imported crime patterns, and a political class more interested in silencing critics than protecting citizens.

The question for Britain is no longer whether the current trajectory is sustainable. It is how much more violence and cultural erosion the public will tolerate before demanding leaders who actually represent the interests of the country they govern. The facts are no longer suppressible. The people are no longer silent.

Just some of the innocent people murdered by migrants in modern England – the youngest being 5-years-old, the eldest 88.

We’ve since had near-fatal attacks in Belfast and Burnley.

When will enough be enough? How many more must die at the altar of diversity? ????????? pic.twitter.com/8dzWVcNVnw

– Suffragent (@Suffragent_) June 13, 2026

Russia could test the NATO alliance’s unity and its “all-for-one” collective defense commitments in the “relatively near future,” Sweden’s Defense Commission has said, sounding the alarm in a fresh report issued Friday.

In the blunt interim report cited by Radio Sweden, the commission made it clear that Moscow’s ‘aggression’ against the West is no longer a distant threat, but that “An armed attack against Sweden or our allies cannot be ruled out.”

So far throughout the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fifth year, it has been Baltic countries and the UK being the most out front in terms of claiming that Russia’s aims are expansionist – a charge Moscow has vehemently and consistently denied.

But now it seems Sweden is hyping the supposed ‘Russia will invade Europe’ narrative, long a favored assumption among the more hawkish of European officials.

President Putin himself has denied repeatedly that his ordered ‘special military operation’ will go beyond Ukraine. While Europe sees Russia aims as based on aggression and going on the offensive, the Kremlin ironically enough sees its actions as fundamentally defensive. 

For example, Putin in a fresh address to Russian service members on Friday stated definitely, “It was they who carried out the coup d’etat in Ukraine, which forced us to take the people of Crimea under protection. When they started the war, they started bombing Donetsk using warplanes.”

But the Swedish Defense Commission – a coalition of lawmakers and defense experts – has still warned that Europe’s security landscape could deteriorate at breakneck speed.

Their prescription is a rapid, hands on and publicly acknowledged overhaul of both military and civil defense rearmament, in effect jumping on the bandwagon, considering the trend among bigger European powers like Germany.

Meanwhile, next door in Finland, Helsinki is keeping a laser focus on the Kremlin’s movements. Both aforementioned Nordic countries actually share Arctic, far northern borders with Russia.

Finnish Defense Minister Antti Hakkanen told public broadcaster Yle that Russia is actively beefing up its military infrastructure and bolstering boots on the ground near the Finnish border.

“Russia is creating new military units, multiplying troop numbers, as well as building capability so that it can quickly mobilize troops from other parts of Russia,” Hakkanen said.

Reports indicate that two Russian warplanes circled near Swedish airspace yesterday, prompting Sweden to scramble Jas 39 Gripen fighter jets to intercept them.

This appears to be a deliberate Russian probe, testing how quickly Sweden and NATO respond to gray-zone provocations.… pic.twitter.com/x5MKCMWKGv

— Global Strategy (@World_At_War_6) June 13, 2026

Reports do indicate Russia is actively constructing a new military garrison in Petrozavodsk, right in Finland’s backyard.

But Russia in its own right does have serious reason to be concerned given the Western military alliance since the start of the Ukraine war has added these very countries as the newest NATO members. Swedenh joined as the 32nd member on March 7, 2024 and Finland was welcomed by Brussels as the 31st member on April 4, 2023.

Authored by Spyridon Andrews via American Greatness,

When the dust settles hundreds of years from now and people begin to assess the hows and whys of Western decline, the issue of colonialism will figure prominently.

We are traveling from Mexico City to San Miguel de Allende with “The Professor,” a San Miguel resident who makes extra money by driving tourists from Mexico City to San Miguel. The title of professor is honorary. He is a self-taught scholar, a writer, and a highly intelligent man who works odd jobs around San Miguel to earn a living. The Professor is sharing tales of the Aztec Empire with us as we drive northward, stopped only briefly by the friendly Mexican police who take their usual bribe of around $200 as insurance against being arrested for more serious crimes, real or fictitious.

The Professor goes on to tell us that all the horrible atrocities allegedly committed by the Aztecs were lies, all lies. Native American culture is burned into the mental DNA of Central Mexico. Children assemble on holidays dressed like little Aztec warriors for parades. There is pride in their Aztec heritage.

On the way back, we stop to see the pyramids outside Mexico City, and The Professor is full of information about this fascinating culture. He describes their innovation, tremendous power, and unrivaled legacy. The Professor is a proud man.

But despite my enormous respect for The Professor, the stories about the Aztecs are not lies. The Aztecs believed that the gods had sacrificed themselves to create the world and that, out of necessity, human blood was required to keep the sun moving across the sky. Human and animal sacrifice have been elemental features of nature religions throughout history. The harvest required blood.

The Aztecs sacrificed prisoners of war in religious ceremonies. The prisoners were led to the tops of temple pyramids, held down by priests, and had their hearts cut out while still alive. Their bodies were then strewn down the steps of the pyramid; the bloodier the spectacle, the better. Archaeological studies at sites such as Templo Mayor have uncovered racks of human skulls known as tzompantli. Human sacrifice was one of the things that made the empire go, alongside continual military conquest and tribute extraction. Subject peoples were required to provide food, textiles, luxury goods, labor, and, when the priests ran out of bodies, sacrificial victims. The Aztecs were so hated that many indigenous groups allied themselves with the Spaniards.

The Mayans also get a bit of a pass. They are remembered for their astronomy, mathematics, writing system, and cities, but not nearly as much for their human sacrifice, torture, and public humiliation of victims. Ritual killings were common, and murder was infused with religious meaning and legitimacy.

There is an awful lot of emphasis on the atrocities of the Spanish conquerors, and there should be. The conquistadores were not such nice guys either. But for all the talk about colonialism, few dare to examine it thoughtfully. Contrary to what they may believe over at Barnard or Smith College, fighting colonialism does not consist of wearing a mask into Philz Coffee. History shows that colonialism is not good or bad in the abstract, any more than all indigenous populations were terrific people who deserved to remain in power forever.

The coffee-shop view of colonialism assumes that moral legitimacy flows automatically from historical priority. We are told that people who arrived first possess a uniquely valid claim to the land and that later arrivals are forever burdened by a kind of original sin. Arguments about ownership in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Americas frequently revolve around the endlessly repeated question of who was there first. To which I say, is this the real question?

Human history is not a story of static populations peacefully occupying fixed territories. Human history is a bloody mess. It is a story of migration, conquest, assimilation, intermarriage, commerce, shifting alliances, and conflict. Before one group was there, another was there. And before them, another. The idea of an original owner is neither logical nor provable.

The notion that being “here first” creates a permanent political entitlement does not survive even minimal scrutiny. If first possession establishes political sovereignty, then every modern nation on earth is illegitimate. Every border, kingdom, republic, and civilization would need to defend itself against claims arising from earlier migrations and forgotten peoples.

Equally false are theological and mystical claims to land. In Israel today, three different religions claim rights to the same patch of desert based upon the authority of their holy books. Throughout history, religions have invoked divine authority to invade neighboring lands, expel inhabitants, and wage war. Whether the justification comes from Manifest Destiny, the Torah, the Talmud, the Koran, or some other sacred source, the underlying claim is essentially the same. And it is nonsense.

The more important question is not who was here first. The more important question is who governs well. I submit that political legitimacy is derived from creating conditions in which human beings can flourish. Legitimacy is established through justice, the protection of liberty, the maintenance of order and safety, the safeguarding of property, the encouragement of opportunity, and the principle that rulers themselves are subject to law.

Today’s discussions of colonialism often condemn it as a single phenomenon. Yet colonial ventures—and indigenous governments—varied enormously. Some colonial regimes were exploitative and destructive. Others introduced institutions that became the foundation of later prosperity. Most contained elements of both.

Some colonial regimes, like Great Britain in many instances, created railroads, ports, courts, universities, modern medicine, commercial systems, property rights, and civil administration. Historical analysis requires attention to actual results rather than slogans.

Under British administration, Hong Kong evolved from a relatively modest trading settlement into one of the world’s most prosperous financial centers. The British were not perfect, since they were, after all, British. But they created opportunities for millions of people over the century, or so they were in power. Then the indigenous Chinese government came into power, bringing its usual basket of fun.

Beijing imposed the National Security Law in 2020. Hong Kong went from one of the freest and most prosperous cities in Asia to a place where political dissent can land you in prison. Independent newspapers were shut down, activists jailed, elections restructured, and civic organizations dissolved. But don’t worry, because it was indigenous.

Singapore followed a different path. The British established a major international port, a functioning legal system, English-language administration, and commercial institutions. Singapore’s leaders built upon those foundations rather than dismantling them. The result was one of the most remarkable economic transformations in modern history. Today, Singapore is one of the safest, wealthiest, and most efficiently governed societies in the world. They built upon foundations laid by the evil colonizers.

Then there is India. British rule was far from one big tea party. Nevertheless, modern India inherited a nationwide civil service, a common-law legal system, rail networks, universities, administrative structures, and commercial institutions that continue to play important roles today. The British made considerable damage, the most lasting of which may be the Indian fascination with cricket, a hideous and boring game, along with the equally annoying habit of taking tea in the middle of a match.

So not all colonial empires are created equal. And now, we should also point out, not all indigenous cultures are created equal. There are many examples, including recent ones, of governments that enjoyed broad cultural support before delivering poverty, repression, corruption, economic stagnation, and the suppression of civil liberties. Cuba, Venezuela, and many African nations come readily to mind.

This confidence in indigenous culture is often paired with the equally dubious assumption that all cultures are equal in their outcomes. Sorry, despite what your anthropology professor told you, all cultures are not equal. Some encourage innovation, literacy, accountability, and economic development. Some protect women, minorities, and dissenters. Some cultivate the peaceful transfer of power. Others normalize violence, patronage, corruption, and disregard for human rights.

Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe was indigenous. He imposed political repression, economic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and destroyed the agricultural sector. He was handed the ball on the five-yard line and fumbled it. Idi Amin was indigenous. His regime became notorious for brutality and persecution. South Africa today has an indigenous government. So does Mexico. The fact that leaders share ancestry with the people they govern tells us nothing about whether they govern wisely.

And what about us? How much comfort should we take from the fact that our own political class is homegrown? Does it make endless debt, endless wars, corruption, and institutional decline more acceptable because the people responsible were born here?

History is not sentimental. It does not care who arrived first, whose ancestors crossed a particular river, or whose holy book claims title to a patch of ground. History does not award virtue based upon genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion, or indigeneity. It asks a far more practical question: What did you do with the place once you got it?

Did you create liberty or oppression? Prosperity or poverty? Justice or corruption? Did ordinary people have the opportunity to build families, businesses, communities, and meaningful lives? Were rulers constrained by law, or did they become laws unto themselves? Did your institutions survive your leaders, or did everything collapse into tribalism, violence, and decay?

That is how civilizations are judged. Rome is not remembered because Romans got there first. Britain is not remembered because Britons got there first. America will not be remembered because Americans got here first. They will be remembered for what they built, what they preserved, what they destroyed, and whether they expanded or diminished the possibilities of human flourishing.

In the end, legitimacy is not inherited. It is earned. It does not arise from ancestry, mythology, chronology, or blood. It arises from competence, justice, liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law. The question is not who was here first. The question has always been, and will always be, who governs well.

Via The Cradle

The breakaway African territory of Somaliland opened a new representative office in Taiwan on Friday, saying it had the right to establish diplomatic relations despite objections from Somalia.

“We have the right to choose who we have relationships with. It’s our prerogative, and so it hasn’t been successful as far as pressure tactics,” stated Mahmoud Adam Jama ​Galaal, Somaliland’s representative to Taiwan, at a press conference to mark the office opening.

Taiwan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Francois Wu also spoke, saying, “Taiwan and Somaliland are both beacons of democracy, freedom, and rule of law.“

Located on the strategic Horn of Africa, Somaliland has functioned as a de facto state since declaring independence from Somalia in 1991, with its own governing institutions and security structures – despite receiving no recognition from any UN member state until Israel recognized it in December. 

Galaal added that Taiwan, which also lacks international recognition, is a “very important ally.” Somaliland and Taiwan first established representative offices in each ⁠other’s capitals in 2020.

Taiwan separated from China after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, when the defeated Nationalist government retreated to the island and established the Republic of China (ROC). The Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China (PRC) on the mainland and has claimed Taiwan as its territory since that time.

Galaal said Somaliland and Taiwan would not succumb to pressure from Beijing and Mogadishu to sever ties.

Somalia condemned Taiwan’s attempts to establish “unauthorized” diplomatic relations with Somaliland.

“”Somaliland remains an inalienable part of Somalia, and we strongly condemn external attempts to bypass the legitimate federal government in Mogadishu,” Ali Mohamed Omar, Somalia’s minister of state for foreign affairs, stated on Friday.

After Israel became the first state to recognize Somaliland’s claim to independence, Mogadishu condemned it as a “deliberate attack” on Somalia’s sovereignty. 

Israel is seeking closer ties with Somaliland as part of its effort to establish military bases allowing it to project power in the Red Sea, including in the strategic Bab al-Mandab Strait, where Yemen’s armed forces are dominant.

In a blow to Somaliland, Washington recently declared support for the sovereignty of Somalia.

A State Department report titled “Potential Areas for Improved US Engagement with Somaliland” was submitted to Congress on 1 June and published by the media on 2 June. 

In that report, the State Department said that Somaliland was a part of the Federal Republic of Somalia and the US maintains a positive relationship with Somaliland “within that framework.”

Republic of Somaliland has a right to choose its own relationships, and pressure tactics from Beijing and Mogadishu have not succeededin altering its friendship with Taipei, its top diplomat in Taiwan said on Friday at the opening of a new office. https://t.co/cGmMRvqROJ pic.twitter.com/7oynvCt6Sk

— REPUBLIC OF SOMALILAND (@RepOfSomaliland) June 12, 2026

A US congressional source told Middle East Eye (MEE) at the time that the US was not planning to recognize Somaliland. 

“Though lobbyists, including former Trump officials Tibor Nagy and Peter Pham, had raised the hopes of Somalilanders over US recognition, there was never a sign that the president would go through with it,” the congressional source said.

America’s biggest economies aren’t always its strongest.

While California, Texas, and New York dominate in economic size, long-term competitiveness depends on a broader mix of factors, from business creation and labor market strength to innovation and investment.

This 2026 analysis by WalletHub evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C. across 28 indicators of economic activity, economic health, and innovation potential.

This ranking, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, highlights the states that are building the foundations for future growth.

Where Every State Ranks in 2026

The ranking below evaluates the economic strength of all 50 states and Washington, D.C. in 2026:

Why Massachusetts Leads the Ranking

Massachusetts outperformed larger states including California, Texas, and New York thanks to its combination of innovation output, STEM talent, and business formation.

It is also home to many of the nation’s fastest-growing tech companies, with business creation propelled by its innovation-driven economy and world-class universities.

Despite being the nation’s 15th-most populous state, Massachusetts is well-positioned to drive innovation and economic growth as technology rapidly accelerates.

Innovation Is the Biggest Separator

The 10 highest-ranking states differ significantly in geography, politics, and industry mix. However, they share a common strength: generating new ideas and new businesses at a considerable rate.

Like Massachusetts, Washington is powered by technology and research. Notably, software developers rank as Washington’s most common occupation. California remains the epicenter for AI giants and venture capital activity. Utah is now one of the country’s fastest-growing tech hubs, with cost-of-living-adjusted median household income reaching $91,600, the highest in the nation.

In contrast, many of the lowest-ranked states produce fewer high-growth companies due to lower investment levels, fewer patents, and less-developed innovation ecosystems.

The New Geography of Growth

One of the clearest patterns in the ranking is the continued rise of the Sun Belt. North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Georgia all rank among America’s economic leaders, reflecting years of population growth, business investment, and job creation.

North Carolina ranks sixth overall, ahead of New York and Colorado. In 2025, it gained a net 84,100 residents, the highest in the country. Texas places eighth, while Florida and Georgia also rank among the top 15. Tennessee and South Carolina also finish comfortably in the upper half of the ranking, while both states recorded some of the strongest domestic migration gains last year.

The result is a broader shift in America’s economic map. While coastal innovation hubs remain dominant, many Southern states are becoming important centers of growth in their own right.

The States Building Tomorrow’s Economy

The rankings suggest that future economic leadership will depend less on size alone and more on a state’s ability to attract talent, support entrepreneurship, and turn innovation into growth.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the fastest-growing states by 2050.

North Korea fired back on Saturday and lashed out at the Washington-Seoul alliance, tearing into a fresh South Korea-EU joint statement that condemned Pyongyang’s deepening military alliance with Russia.

North Korea has increasingly over the past acknowledge a significant number of troops sacrificed in support of Russia and in the context of the brutal and grinding Ukraine war.

The Western-aligned statement, inked Wednesday during South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s high-profile trip to Brussels, took direct aim at the “illegal military cooperation” fueling the war in Ukraine.

“We condemn support by third parties, in particular the DPRK, which enables Russia to sustain its war of aggression against Ukraine,” the statement said.

A fully anticipated, North Korea’s foreign ministry quickly hit back through the state-run Korean Central News Agency, framing its axis with Moscow as a mere “exercise of sovereign rights.”

Russia and North Korea under Presidents Putin and Kim have even signed a defense, technology and economic cooperation pact relatively recently.

The ministry didn’t mince words, calling the joint condemnation a “clear infringement on the sovereignty of our state and a grave hostile act,” while pointedly reminding everyone that South Korea remains the North’s primary “enemy state.”

Pyongyang has of late branded Seoul as Washington’s “favorite dagger” in alleged grand American plot aimed at “invading… the Asian continent.”

The reference was a play on words after General Xavier Brunson, the top American military commander in South Korea, raised eyebrows last month by provocatively describing his host nation as “the dagger in the heart of Asia.”

Both North Korea and China have seized on Brunson’s slip of the tongue, painting it as proof of Washington’s true playbook ofusing Seoul to contain Beijing.

With North Korean leader Kim Jong Un already putting his money where his mouth is – shipping troops and heavy munitions to bolster Vladimir Putin’s front lines – the war in Ukraine has slowly been morphing into more than just a EUropean crisis.

Earlier this week, a routine livestreamed Meta meeting descended into open revolt.

During a presentation open to thousands of employees, one participant suddenly interrupted the speakers with a profanity-laced outburst, according to WIRED. The employee declared they felt like “the company’s bitch” and demanded that the people leading the call write to a specific Meta AI executive and “tell him that he’s a piece of shit.”

One presenter reportedly covered their face with their hands. Moderators asked everyone to mute. The technical discussion eventually continued, but the moment – which employees in the chat described as “spicy” – revealed something much deeper: widespread anger and disillusionment inside Meta’s newly formed Applied AI unit.

“It’s literally the gulag. You have zero purpose in life all of a sudden, you barely interact with anyone, you just have these tasks every week,” one current employee told WIRED on condition of anonymity. 

A Rapid, Painful Reorganization

That unit, formed in March 2026 to support researchers at Meta’s Superintelligence Labs, now employs roughly 6,500 engineers and product managers. Many were reassigned with little warning. Their new work – largely generating puzzles, coding challenges, and evaluation tasks to test how reliably AI models can solve problems – has left a significant portion of the team feeling demoralized and stripped of purpose.

“Most people find the work soul-crushing,” another employee said. All three sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media. Meta declined to comment.

Key Numbers

The Applied AI unit is only the most visible flashpoint in a much broader restructuring. In May, Meta laid off approximately 8,000 employees as part of an AI-focused overhaul. Another ~7,000 people were transferred into new AI-related initiatives.

The speed and bluntness of the changes have created ripple effects across multiple divisions. Employees in data center engineering and Instagram have reported increased stress and workload. Meanwhile, more than 1,600 Meta employees signed a petition demanding the company stop a recently launched program that monitors U.S. employees’ clicks, keystrokes, and screen activity to generate training data for AI agents. The company has since scaled the program back slightly.

“It’s Like What The Fuck”

During an all-hands meeting this week for Instagram employees, Chief Product Officer Chris Cox addressed the turmoil directly. According to a recording obtained by WIRED, Cox described the past few months as a “difficult” and “brutal” environment created by the “insanity of this company.”

He praised Instagram teams for continuing to ship features and serve roughly 2 billion users while navigating constant upheaval. Then he compared the situation to “running a marathon in the middle of a hailstorm and then, like, your teammate gets replaced and then we’re recording you.”

“It’s like what the fuck,” said Cox – adding again, “It is like what the fuck.” 

Cox also struck a notably measured tone on AI itself: “It is neither god, nor is it the devil. And it’s nowhere near as good as you think it is, and it is nowhere near as bad as you think it is.”

Engineers across Meta have reported feeling sidelined and demoralized by sudden reassignments into repetitive AI evaluation work.

Zuckerberg Acknowledges Mistakes

The same week, CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent an internal memo to employees acknowledging that the company had made errors in how it reshaped its workforce around AI.

“Given the complexity of these changes, we’ve made mistakes and will almost certainly make more,” said Zuckerberg, according to Reuters. 

Zuckerberg wrote that he is “focused on providing as much stability as possible” going forward and does not expect additional company-wide layoffs this year. He said Meta would work to create “important new roles” for employees who were reassigned to AI training and support work.

He also noted plans to increase spending on team-building initiatives, including a large-scale hackathon in July, and to scale back the unusually wide manager spans that appeared in the new Applied AI unit (some reportedly reached 50:1 ratios).

Why The Work Feels Like Punishment

The core complaint inside Applied AI is not that the company is investing in AI – most employees understand the strategic importance. It is the nature of the tasks many were suddenly asked to perform and the way the transition was handled.

Generating high-quality evaluation puzzles and coding problems is genuinely difficult and valuable work for frontier model development. But for engineers who previously built products, shipped features, and collaborated creatively, being reassigned to repetitive, solitary evaluation tasks has felt like a demotion.

“You have zero purpose in life all of a sudden,” one of the employees told WIRED. “You barely interact with anyone, you just have these tasks every week.”

The flat organizational structure exacerbated the problem. With so few managers, many employees felt they had little support, visibility, or path to more meaningful roles.

Many engineers were reassigned to repetitive puzzle-generation and model-evaluation tasks – work they describe as soul-crushing compared to their previous roles.

The Stakes Are High

Meta is not alone in pushing rapid AI-driven reorganization. Across Silicon Valley, companies are redirecting resources, cutting teams, and experimenting with new workflows to stay competitive in the AI race. But few have done so at Meta’s scale or with such visible internal blowback.

The risk for Meta is real. Engineering talent remains the scarcest resource in AI. If skilled people feel their work has been devalued or that leadership is moving too fast without regard for the human impact, attrition to competitors becomes more likely – exactly when the company needs its best people most.

Zuckerberg’s memo and Cox’s candid remarks suggest leadership is aware of the damage. The promised July hackathon, new role creation, and reduced manager spans are concrete steps toward repair. Whether they will be enough remains to be seen.

For now, the message from parts of the workforce is clear: the company’s aggressive AI transformation has left many employees feeling used, undervalued, and angry. And some are no longer willing to stay quiet about it.