Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to meet with President Trump at the White House in the coming weeks after the 12-day US-Israeli war on Iran, Axios has reported.

Israeli officials said that Netanyahu wants to “celebrate” the joint bombing campaign with Trump, as the Israeli leader is declaring the war a victory, although Israel got hit hard by Iranian missiles right up until the ceasefire took effect, something President Trump has acknowledged.

“Israel got hit really hard. Those ballistic missiles, boy, they took out a lot of buildings,” Trump told reporters at the NATO summit in The Hague on Wednesday.

Netanyahu may be seeking additional military aid from the US to replenish Israel’s interceptors and bombs in the ongoing conflict. The Axios report said that Trump and Netanyahu are “closer than ever” and that US and Israeli officials have discussed the possibility of Netanyahu’s third White House visit this year, but so far, a date hasn’t been set.

The report comes after Trump called for the corruption charges against Netanyahu to be dropped, which an Israeli official claimed is part of a strategy to ‘bring an end to the war in Gaza, the release of all the hostages, an end to Netanyahu’s trial, and a serious regional move.”

According to a report from Israel Hayom, Trump and Netanyahu have reached an understanding on terms for a potential deal that would end Israel’s genocidal onslaught in Gaza and involve other moves in the region, but many of the terms are likely unacceptable to Hamas and Palestinians in general.

According to the report, the terms include:

1. Gaza hostilities will conclude within two weeks, ending conditions will encompass four Arab nations (including Egypt and the United Arab Emirates) to administer the Gaza Strip, replacing Hamas. The remaining Hamas leadership will face exile to other countries, while the hostages gain freedom
2. Multiple nations globally will accept numerous Gaza inhabitants seeking emigration
3. Abraham Accords expansion will bring Syria, Saudi Arabia, and additional Arab and Muslim countries to recognize Israel and establish official relationships.
4. Israel will declare its willingness for future Palestinian conflict resolution under the “two states” concept, contingent upon the Palestinian Authority reforms.
5. The United States will acknowledge a limited Israeli annexation in the West Bank

President Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, said in an interview on Wednesday that the US may soon announce Arab countries that are willing to join the Abraham Accords, referring to the normalization deals Israel signed with the UAE and Bahrain during the first Trump administration.

Syria, which is now led by a former al-Qaeda leader, has been engaged in normalization talks with Israel, but Saudi Arabia has maintained that it won’t normalize with Israel without a Palestinian state.

For now, there does not appear to be any US pressure on Israel to stop the alleged genocide in Gaza, and Palestinians continue to be slaughtered by Israeli forces every day.

A recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of South Carolina allows states to deny Medicaid funds to NGO Planned Parenthood in a move that sets a precedent for conservative states across the country to block tax dollars going to abortion providers. 

Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centers on whether low-income Medicaid patients can sue under what is known as Section 1983 – part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 – in order to choose their own qualified healthcare provider.  The case involves South Carolina’s blocking of Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, which the organization argued violated federal law.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court noted that the typical redress for such a violation would be for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withhold Medicaid funding from the state, not for an individual to sue the state.  

The decision upends the long running problem of taxpayers being forced to indirectly fund abortion clinics and procedures which they morally oppose.  According to 2022 data, Planned Parenthood receives at least $600 million annually through state Medicaid reimbursments (taxpayer dollars), which is around 30% of the organization’s total revenue.  Though not all of this money goes towards abortions, Planned Parenthood’s primary political lobby efforts focus on increasing abortion access. 

The Hyde Amendment, a long-standing piece of legislation, prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life.  However, while federal funds cannot be used for abortions (except in the limited circumstances mentioned), the Hyde Amendment does not apply to state funding and some states may choose to use their own Medicaid cash to cover abortions. 

State Medicaid access has long been dictated by the ability of patients to choose their specific healthcare provider, meaning Planned Parenthood found a way around restrictions on federal money.  South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster has been pushing to block public health dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, but a resident and patient at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic argues that doing so violates her rights under the Medicaid Act.  

The key provision in the 1965 Medicaid Act guarantees patients a “free choice of provider” that is willing and qualified. Much of the conflict deals with whether Planned Parenthood is a “qualified provider” under the Medicaid law, and whether individual patients have an unambiguous “right” to sue to see their provider of choice, under its specific language.

Furthermore, just because an individual or small group of people view Planned Parenthood as their provider of choice, does this mean everyone else is then required to pay into an NGO that offers services like abortion which they oppose? In other words, do voters in a particular state have the right to opt out of participation in abortion funding? 

The Supreme Court says yes.

If the federal government can restrict how tax dollars are spent through Medicaid, why can’t states do the same?  The SCOTUS ruling that overturned Roe v Wade ended the claim that citizens have a federally protected right to abortions and left the determination to individual states.  This means that each state also has the power to decide if it will continue to fund operations like Planned Parenthood or cut off the cash flow. 

The conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom argues that a win for South Carolina would still mean Medicaid patients could go to one of 200 other publicly funded healthcare clinics in the state.  Meaning, no one is being denied access to vital healthcare; Planned Parenthood has simply been designated as unnecessary and contrary to the principles of the people of SC. 

Pro-abortion activists argue that without state funds Planned Parenthood will be forced to shut down.  Pro-life activists assert that this is the point.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Former New York City Democratic Rep. Jamaal Bowman claimed during a CNN appearance that racism against black people causes them to contract serious illnesses.

Bowman suggested that hearing racist slurs is a direct cause of cancer, diabetes and heart disease among black Americans.

“The problem is we’re not dealing with America’s original sin,” Bowman blathered, adding “this disease of hate and racism towards black and brown people and sexism towards women and anti-LGBTQ sentiment, we are not dealing with that.”

According to racebaiting grifter Jamal Bowman Black people have high rates of obesity, heart disease, and cancer because of their fear of being called the N word. 🤦🏾‍♂️ pic.twitter.com/mACogMBfFi

— CartierFamily (@cartierfamilyZ) June 26, 2025

Addressing the token Republican on the panel, Bowman stated “Your colleagues in the Republican Party do not hold each other accountable when it comes to the racism that comes from the party on a consistent basis.”

“Where you are calm about this,” Bowman contiuned to rant, “I’m a black man in America. The reason why heart disease—listen to what I’m saying—the reason why heart disease and cancer and obesity and diabetes are bigger in the black community is because of the stress we carry from having to deal with being called the n-word directly or indirectly every day.”

Providing no evidence whatsoever, Bowman added, “If your colleagues would listen and try to learn and engage and grow and stop being so hateful, we could have a better country, but unfortunately we’re still here.” 

When a white panelist stated “I feel your passion, and I understand where you’re coming from, I really really do—” Bowman yelled, “we have cops beat black people to death and they’re acquitted.”

Absolutely unhinged.

Yea no.. it’s all genetic. Fallow the science and thank me later!

— Luke man (@luke_paponette) June 26, 2025

Maybe he should tell his fellow black people to stop calling one another that constantly, if it’s effecting their health so negatively even the songs are riddled with that slur.

— Sheila 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@SheilaGWM) June 26, 2025

I’m surprised he didn’t blame diabetes on pulling fire alarms in congress

— Kildzr (@kildzr) June 26, 2025

The party of the mentally ill

— daniel sullivan (@daniels37617783) June 26, 2025

Victim mentality.

— akSloper (@aksloper) June 26, 2025

And yet they don’t support RFK jr banning soft drinks and processed food from being purchased with food stamps 🤔

— Jennifer McVay (@jennfcookrn) June 26, 2025

This is what @CNN is…. complete and utter horseshit. It is beyond repair and needs to be bled dry.

— TaborJohn (@TaborJohn1) June 26, 2025

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

For most citizens, the release of Supreme Court opinions is about as exciting as watching paint dry, particularly in a case dealing with the limits of district courts in issuing universal injunctions.

Yet Friday’s Trump v. CASA case included a virtual slugfest between Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision was one of the biggest of the term. The Court moved to free the Administration from an onslaught of orders from district judges seeking to block the President in areas ranging from the downsizing of government to immigration.

However, it was the departure of the normally staid court analysis that attracted the most attention.

The tenor of Jackson’s language shocked not just many court watchers, but her colleagues.

It seemed ripped from the signs carried just a couple of weeks earlier in the “No Kings” protests.

The Court often deals with issues that deeply divide the nation.

Yet it tends to calm the waters by engaging in measured, reasoned analysis — showing the nation that these are matters upon which people can have good-faith disagreements.

But that culture of civility and mutual respect has been under attack in recent years.

Not long ago, the Court was rocked by the leaking of the draft of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. That was followed by furious protests against conservative justices at their homes and an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

There was also a change in the tenor of the exchanges in oral argument and opinions between the justices.

Recently, during the argument over the use of national injunctions in May, Chief Justice John Roberts was clearly fed up with Justice Sotomayor interrupting government counsel with pointed questions and commentary, finally asking Sotomayor, “Will you please let us hear his answer?”

This hyperbole seemed to border on hysteria in the Jackson dissent. The most junior justice effectively accused her colleagues of being toadies for tyranny.

It proved too much for the majority, which pushed back on the overwrought rhetoric.

While the language may seem understated in comparison to what we regularly hear in Congress, it was the equivalent of a virtual cage match for the Court.

Some of us have argued that our system is working just as designed, particularly as these issues work through the courts. The courts have ruled for and against this Administration as they struggle with the difficult lines of authority between the branches.

Liberals who claim “democracy is dying” seem to view democracy as getting what you want when you want it.

It was, therefore, distressing to see Jackson picking up on the “No Kings” theme, warning about drifting toward “a rule-of-kings governing system”

She said that limiting the power of individual judges to freeze the entire federal government was “enabling our collective demise. At the very least, I lament that the majority is so caught up in minutiae of the Government’s self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.”

The “minutiae” dismissed by Jackson happen to be the statutory and constitutional authority of federal courts. It is the minutiae that distinguish the rule of law from mere judicial impulse.

Justice Barrett clearly had had enough with the self-aggrandizing rhetoric. She delivered a haymaker in writing that “JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too.”

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

In other words, the danger to democracy is found in judges acting like kings. Barrett explained to her three liberal colleagues that “when a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.”

The last term has laid bare some of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a certain exasperation with having to closely follow the text of laws.  (In an earlier dissent this term, Jackson lashed out against the limits of textualism and argued for courts to free themselves from the confines — or shall we say the “minutiae” — of statutory language). In this opinion, Barrett slams Jackson for pursuing other diversions “because analyzing the governing statute involves boring ‘legalese.’” Again, what Jackson refers to as “legalese” is the heart of the judicial function in constraining courts under Article III.

Untethered by statutory or constitutional text, it allows the courts to float free from the limits of the Constitution.

For many, that is not an escape into minutiae but madness without clear lines for judicial power.

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

Russian drones slammed into the southern Ukrainian port city of Odesa overnight, killing two people and injuring at least 17 others, Ukrainian officials announced Saturday.

Emergency services said a drone struck a residential high-rise, damaging three floors and trapping residents inside, with the regional governor identifying that the victims were a married couple, with three children among the wounded.

“Rescuers pulled the bodies of two people from the rubble who died as a result of a hostile drone strike on a residential building,” Odesa Governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram.

Russia’s Defense Ministry was silent on the attack, on saying that it had intercepted more than 40 Ukrainian drones overnight sent over Russian territory, as well as in Crimea.

This comes as both sides increasingly rely heavily on smaller, short-range drones for battlefield operations and missions along their roughly 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line – but the key port city of Odesa has been coming under more regular attacks, something which wasn’t a feature of the opening years of the war.

Also Saturday Kherson Governor Oleksandr Prokudin said that “Russian troops targeted critical and social infrastructure and residential areas in the region.”

In Donetsk, Russian troops have reportedly captured another village, as the slow grinding effort to solidify hold over the whole region continues, with no peace negotiations on the horizon.

A new plan of expanding west of Donetsk appears part of establishing Putin’s big security ‘buffer zone’. At this point it’s clear that Kiev’s backers in NATO can do nothing about this, except throw more money and weapons at the conflict.

Presidents Trump and Zelensky this week at the NATO summit reportedly discussed Ukraine procuring more US anti-air defense systems, which ironically enough will likely be purchased with US taxpayer funds already poured into Kiev’s coffers.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Around a hundred private jets carrying celebrities have descended on Italy to deliver eco-hypocrites including Leonardo DiCaprio, Oprah Winfrey and Bill Gates to the wedding of tech billionaire Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez.

Bezos is holding a three day event, yes three days, in Venice at a cost of somewhere in the region of $50-100 million.

While the exact same people lecture you about taking the occasional economy flight for a family getaway, they’re literally chartering their own carbon spewing flights just for themselves to attend a piss up.

100 private jets set to fly into Venice for Jeff Bezos’ wedding to Lauren Sanchez.

Dozens of celebrities are flying into the $50 million wedding with guests including; the Kardashians, Oprah Winfrey, Gayle King, Orlando Bloom and Tom Brady. pic.twitter.com/noZoVY7tXJ

— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) June 27, 2025

Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez are getting married in Venice, and the three-day wedding celebration will bring in nearly 100 private jets and a guest list full of billionaires and celebrities, including Oprah and Leonardo DiCaprio, Mercury News reports.

Streets have been closed, boats rerouted, and security teams stationed across the city for the event, taking place from June 26-28. Now, people who live there — and plenty of others online — are calling the whole thing over-the-top and extremely out of touch.

Here’s how the elites are partying—by flying 90 private jets to Italy to attend Jeff Bezos’ $50–100 million wedding.

All of them so-called “climate change activists,” living like there’s no tomorrow—hypocrites, every one of them. People like Bill Gates, Oprah Winfrey, the… pic.twitter.com/Mzt3ZAtOOk

— Open Minded Approach (@OMApproach) June 27, 2025

On average, private jets emit about 2 to 3 metric tons of CO2 per flight hour.

A typical short flight, around 500 mile for example, emits somewhere in the region of 5-10 tons of CO2, while a long-haul flight of 3,000 miles could emit 20-30 tons. This is significantly higher per person than commercial flights, often 10-20 times more, as private jets carry fewer passengers.

Won’t 100 private jets be bad for the environment?

They said climate change is an existential threat 🤡

— Ms. Jazz (@Linda82982011) June 27, 2025

Bezos himself bangs on about the impending climate change apocalypse while maintaining a $500 million super yacht and a $78 million dollar beach mansion located right next to the sea.

He’s even built some sort of massive doomsday clock underground, designed to survive the collapse of civilisation.

He built a 500-foot (152-meter) clock inside a mountain in Texas that is designed to tick once a year for the next 10,000 years. It’s a doomsday clock meant to survive the coming geophysical event and serve as a kind of religious pilgrimage site for the survivors.

He has the… pic.twitter.com/U8BPUN5Tu3

— Open Minded Approach (@OMApproach) June 27, 2025

Yet he’s apparently quite content to contribute significantly toward the end of the human race, if you take the climate cult alarmism at face value.

Anybody flying a private jet to a wedding should shut up about climate change. https://t.co/Wdqsg7xxkI

— Mark Fredrickson (@mfredri) June 27, 2025

Great for the planet ! And after that they will complain that you drive your car too often

— Info_Be 🇧🇪🇫🇷 (@Belgique_Actu) June 27, 2025

It figures that Bezos would invite fellow ‘super emitters’ DiCaprio and Bill Gates to his wedding:

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

As the great Ron Paul said…

Foreign aid is taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries. #CNNDebate #tcot #RonPaul

— Ron Paul (@RonPaul) October 19, 2011

But is it worse than that? Not simply a wealth transfer but a lever of control, wielded by the U.S. government to make weaker nations fall in line. Soft power as they call it.

Few understand it better than Mike Benz, formerly the “Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Communications and Information Policy” at the State Department. Benz believes soft power and foreign aid, managed effectively, have their place in the U.S. empire. Tonight we are bringing the reformist Benz together with foreign aid proponent Cenk Uygur and abolitionist Keith Knight (editor of Scott Horton’s Libertarian Institute) to answer the question: “should we abolish foreign aid?” Hosted by Josie the “Redheaded Libertarian”.

Tune in to the top of the ZH homepage or X page at 7pm ET tonight to watch the debate live.

Subscribe on YouTube, Spotify, and Rumble to be notified of new debates.

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Substituting debt for earnings while enriching the rich will bear bitter fruit.

Climbing above the craziness of the Normalized Now news flow to view the economy from a quiet, windswept peak helps clear the mind of clutter. The entire economy–and its future–can be distilled down to four charts that tell the underlying story of the U.S. economy over the past 55 years.

Many of the thousands of charts floating around illuminate some aspect of the economy, but these four tell the primary story:

1. The gains from rising productivity–the only durable source of prosperity–were shifted from wages to owners of capital.

2. As wages lost ground, the central bank (Federal Reserve) replaced cash earnings with debt, by a) lowering interest rates for 40 years, b) increasing the money supply and c) opening the flood gates of credit.

3. Wage earners used credit to pay expenses, the wealthy used credit to buy income-producing assets.

4. As a result, assets such as houses are now unaffordable to all but the wealthy.

The net result of these dynamics is the rich got much, much richer, and wage earners became debt-serfs paying interest to the wealthy owners of their debts. Let’s start by noting the difference between an owner-occupied house and an asset (for example a rental property) that generates income.

The owner-occupied house may appreciate in value over time, but this increase isn’t income or a capital gain until the house is sold. Until that point of sale, the house is merely an expense.

Student loans, auto loans, credit cards, etc. are also expenses. Wage earners’ debts are expenses that aren’t offset by income generated by the “asset” purchased with credit.

The quibble here is a $100,000 student loan will “pay off” by increasing the earnings of the student debtor, but this is not the equivalent of buying a bond that pays guaranteed interest. The university diploma may or may not pay off, or it may pay off for a few years and then become a net liability. It’s more a wager than an investment, regardless of what the Higher Education / Student Loan industry claim.

The wealthy who already own assets have a much deeper pool of credit to tap, and the cost of borrowing money is lower for them, too. So the wealthy tapped the expanding pool of “money” and credit to buy income-producing assets: stocks, real estate, enterprises, etc.

Given the limited quantity of real-world assets that generate income, this relentless credit-fueled demand from the wealthy pushed the valuations of assets higher, rendering them less affordable to wage earners.

This massive, sustained transfer of wealth via credit expansion has been going on so long that it’s now normalized: very few people can recall an economy that shared the gains with wage earners rather than diverting most of the nation’s wealth to the already-wealthy.

This chart of wages’ share of the nation’s income is the key snapshot of the economy’s core dynamic. No, it’s not tech, or the stock market, it’s this systemic shift of income from wage earners to owners of capital.

Over the past 50 years, this transfer amounts to a staggering $150 trillion: (same chart, but with the FRED database link)

Here is the chart of total credit expansion, which has outpaced not just wages but GDP (gross domestic product):

This chart of the top 9% (the top 1% have their own chart) shows how the rich have become much richer. The top 10% (top 9% plus the top 1%) have a net worth of $108 trillion, double that of the bottom 90% ($52 trillion), and 27X the net worth of the bottom 50% of the populace ($4 trillion).

The net result is housing has shifted from being affordable to wage earners seeking a place to live to an asset snapped up by the wealthy, private equity and corporations: since wage earners have lost ground, they cannot possibly compete with the wealthy in a bidding war funded by bottomless credit lines. Housing is now unaffordable except to the wealthy.

As a lagniappe, here is a chart of the wealth held by the top 0.01%, which illustrated how the wealth piling up in the top 10% has aggregated in the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%.

What future do these charts forecast? Instability on a scale few believe possible in the Normalized Now of $100 million homes, $600 million yachts and the speculative frenzy arising as those left behind seek some long-shot wager to gain a bit of the ground that has been lost over 2+ generations.

Substituting debt for earnings while enriching the rich will bear bitter fruit. How it manifests is unknowable, but that it will manifest is predictable. Extremes become more extreme until they break the entire status quo into brittle shards.

My new book Ultra-Processed Life, is available at a 25% discount (ebook edition) and 19% discount (print edition) through Friday, June 27.

*  *  *

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Subscribe to my Substack for free

Reporters and breaking news X accounts indicate that anti-scale fencing was erected late Friday night into early Saturday morning around the White House and Treasury Department buildings in Washington, D.C. 

While no official statement has been released, prevailing speculation online attributes the move to: 

• Preemptive security posture ahead of the July 4th holiday. 

• National March on Washington scheduled for Saturday, June 28 at 1 PM, led by ANSWER Coalition and affiliated anti-war organizations, protesting potential U.S. military escalation with Iran.

NBC News reporter Ben Popken questioned a U.S. Secret Service agent about the sudden construction of fencing and the apparent elevation in security posture. The agent attributed the move to standard protective measures ahead of the July 4th holiday. 

In DC for work trip. Some new high black metal fencing went up today around White House Lafayette Square. A Secret Service agent told me it was for renovations to the grounds and in preparation for the 4th. pic.twitter.com/DzIkaUbrR1

— Ben Popken (@bpopken) June 28, 2025

More footage of anti-scale fencing being erected. 

🚨#BREAKING: Tonight in Washington, D.C., construction crews are actively erecting and putting up Large anti-scale barricades around the White House and the Treasury.

Any guesses what’s coming 👀 pic.twitter.com/XLVHQhBZbi

— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) June 28, 2025

Another possible reason for the heightened security posture could be the far-left ANSWER Coalition’s “National March on Washington,” scheduled for 1 PM EST today.

📆 Saturday, June 28
🕐 1:00PM
📍 Washington DC
🔗 Details and bus info: https://t.co/UqiNSlDy5s

Join people from across the country for a national march on the White House on Saturday, June 28 for a massive protest to demand that Trump & Netanyahu stop the war on Iran! pic.twitter.com/uRHReBYI2j

— ANSWER Coalition (@answercoalition) June 22, 2025

The usual suspects behind leftist protests are involved in organizing this event, including ANSWER, the Palestinian Youth Movement, Black Alliance for Peace, NIAC, Code Pink, and, of course, the Democratic Socialists of America.

Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project has linked some of these far-left organizers to foreign adversaries…

“Phones visiting the ANSWER Coalition and Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) also visited Iran and the Chinese consulate,” Oversight Project wrote on X. 

We analyzed ad data from devices visiting ANSWER’s/PSL’s public San Francisco address

One device had 4 data points at the address, which appear to correspond to two distinct visits separated by 1.5 years.

The same device had 213 data points in Iran. pic.twitter.com/ImKqxohsPY

— Oversight Project (@ItsYourGov) June 24, 2025

In recent weeks, U.S. Congressional Republicans, led by Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY), launched a formal investigation into dark money networks and the political affiliations of billionaire Neville Roy Singham, a U.S. national reportedly residing in Communist China. 

Singham is suspected of funding far-left color revolutions in the U.S. with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The inquiry focuses on Singham’s possible role as a proxy in CCP propaganda operations and his potential legal exposure under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

In a letter to the billionaire, House Republicans requested documents and information about his dark money network supporting leftist NGOs such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which reportedly played a part in the anti-ICE riots across Los Angeles.

“It has been reported that Mr. Singham is ‘the main backer behind’ the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), which has organized nationwide protests, including the Los Angeles riots. According to the New York Times, Mr. Singham, who resides in the People’s Republic of China, has a long track record of assisting far-left entities, such as Code Pink, that oppose U.S. interests and support U.S. adversaries,” House Republicans wrote in the letter.

As a reminder, Singham is married to Jodie Evans, a far-left political activist and co-founder of Code Pink. Notably, Code Pink is one of the listed sponsors of today’s National March on Washington. This raises serious questions about the extent to which foreign adversaries may be funding or influencing these rogue leftist NGOs operating under the guise of grassroots activism that have an agenda to create as much destabilization as possible. Anti-ICE riots are evidence of that… 

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge in Texas has temporarily blocked a new Trump administration policy targeting small-dollar cross-border transactions aimed at curbing cartel money laundering, siding with two businesses who argued it was crippling their operations and scaring off customers.

In a June 24 ruling, U.S. District Judge Leon Schydlower granted a temporary restraining order to Valuta Corporation and Payan’s Fuel Center, two El Paso-based money services businesses, finding they were likely to succeed on their claim that the policy—requiring reports of cash transactions as low as $200—was arbitrary and capricious.

The policy, imposed by the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) through a Geographic Targeting Order (GTO) issued March 11, mandates that money service businesses in 30 ZIP codes across California and Texas file currency transaction reports on all cash transactions between $200 and $10,000. The reporting threshold was previously set at $10,000 under longstanding Bank Secrecy Act rules.

The new mandate, part of a broader Trump administration initiative to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations and choke off their U.S. financing, was justified by officials as necessary to stop traffickers from breaking up large sums into smaller cash transactions to avoid detection.

But the plaintiffs—who testified earlier this year in a related case—said the policy instead ensnared law-abiding businesses in high-risk neighborhoods, driving away customers, and overwhelming staff with red tape. In court filings, both described staying up late into the night to complete paperwork and turning away regular customers unwilling to provide personal details such as Social Security numbers to convert or transmit modest sums.

Ashley Light, co-owner of Valuta, said her family’s business had operated since the early 1980s and had only ever filed 123 currency transaction reports (CTR) in all of 2024. Under the new rule, she was forced to submit approximately 1,600 reports in a single month—an explosion in paperwork she said threatened the business’s viability.

“One salaried employee and I have both increased our hours by about 50 [percent]. I am working until about 1:00 in the morning, just doing CTRs,” Light wrote in a declaration. “The failure to file on time is an offense. Each late CTR could mean a fine of over $1,400 or over $70,000 if the government decides the violation is willful. If Valuta slips up at all, we now face potentially ruinous fines.”

Andres Payan Jr., who runs a gas station that also provides check-cashing services, said in filings that many of his customers felt uncomfortable by the new identification demands. Since the GTO went into effect, Payan said he’s lost about 35 percent of his check-cashing business, along with secondary revenue, such as for goods that cash-checking customers might buy.

In response, Trump administration attorneys argued that the GTO is justified because money service businesses along the southwest border are “particularly vulnerable” to money-laundering abuses by cartels, who launder illicit proceeds through the U.S. financial system. They also disputed the claimed burden of compliance with the new rule, calling it “exaggerated.” But even if the court were to grant relief sought by the plaintiffs, it should do so narrowly, tailoring the ruling so that it only applies to the businesses involved in the lawsuit, rather than vacating the GTO with respect to all businesses within covered areas in Texas or elsewhere.

The judge sided with the plaintiffs, but tailored the ruling so it only shields Valuta and Payan’s Fuel Center from further enforcement, meaning other businesses that have not joined the lawsuit are not covered.

In his ruling, Schydlower noted that the government had failed to grapple with the real-world consequences of the rule’s geographic design, which penalizes businesses based solely on ZIP code boundaries. He pointed to Yarbrough Drive, an El Paso street that separates two adjacent ZIP codes—one covered by the order and one not—and said a cartel member “could simply cross” the street to avoid the requirements.

“Innocent businesses can be profoundly disadvantaged if they are located on the ‘wrong’ side of an El Paso street,” he wrote, calling the GTO “completely toothless” from an enforcement perspective.

The case is one of several legal challenges to the GTO. Federal judges in California and Texas previously granted preliminary injunctions, but those orders only applied to a limited number of plaintiffs. Because Valuta and Payan’s Fuel Center were not covered by earlier rulings—despite having provided testimony in those lawsuits—they filed a new suit in June seeking protection.

The GTO targets ZIP codes in six counties along the U.S.–Mexico border: Imperial and San Diego in California, and Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick, and Webb in Texas. Officials argue these areas pose heightened risks for illicit financial activity linked to cross-border narcotics trade.

The Epoch Times has reached out to the Treasury Department with a request for comment on Schydlower’s June 24 ruling and whether the administration plans to appeal or modify the GTO in light of the court’s findings.