Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

Travel back in time to the year 2021 and you might find yourself in the middle of a bizarre debate over the virtues of “cancel culture”. At the time the political left was aggressively trying to secure long term power within the US through a multi-pronged psychological offensive – A war on the minds of the masses designed to force Americans into submission.

A big part of their strategy relied on the fundamentals of Cultural Marxism: The combination of Marxist mob tactics, artificial consensus and the exploitation of minority grievances as a vehicle for controlling speech. This was the rise of the “woke movement” to the halls of government.

The root of their power was not martial. In fact, the political left is weak and largely astroturf with minimal ability to project power in a physical way. If conservatives wanted to destroy them tomorrow the task would be relatively easy. We don’t because many of us still have hope that our problems can be solved through peaceful discourse.

What the leftists did have at their disposal was a massive institutional apparatus of government agencies, corporations, Big Tech and NGOs. The full might of the establishment cabal was on their side, which meant they had the means to enforce “cancel culture” and silence their ideological opponents.

I don’t think there has ever been a psychological war on a population that was more pervasive and tyrannical. Not since Mao’s Cultural Revolution in China has a citizenry been under such a siege by their own government. The fact that we survived this event, defeated the onslaught and actually grew a grassroots anti-woke movement without the use of social media forums is truly mind blowing.

Very few people today realize the level of victory that was achieved. We thwarted perhaps the largest 4th Generation “mind war” ever devised and we did it without any institutional access. We won by simple truth and word of mouth.

Another tool that the leftists and globalists used was the mobilization of illegal migrants, gays and minorities as a shield against criticism or counter-protest. If conservatives and moderates fought back with superior debate or our own protest groups, we were immediately accused of racism, xenophobia and homophobia. Merely presenting an opposing view to the progressive machine was considered an act of evil.

Large contingents within all of these groups were happy to go along with the agenda for numerous reasons.

First and foremost, DEI allowed them to easily game the system. They could snatch up grants, subsidies, welfare, and leapfrog over more talented and more intelligent competitors in education and business simply because of their “marginalized status”.

Secondly, the system under progressives was two-tier; leftists activists, illegals and minorities were given preferential protection while breaking the law and causing chaos. Conservatives were labeled terrorists for any act of defiance. We were banned from the largest web platforms. Some of us were targeted by the online mob and lost our jobs. Others were “de-banked” and threatened with ostracism from the economy. Still others were imprisoned.

This imbalance of the law bred a culture of entitlement, especially within the LGBT cult and the black community. Illegal aliens were given carte blanche to enter the country and feed like parasites. Not only that, but they were treated like heroes coming to save the US from “population decline” and “labor shortages”.

They all participated in the game willfully and joyfully. They were ALL part of the problem. But, of course, none of them ever thought the party would end or that they might end up facing consequences for their behavior. They joined in the feeding frenzy without considering the inevitable clap-back.

The primary argument that leftists would often use to defend the application of cancel culture was that there was “no such thing as cancel culture”, only the righteous utilization of “consequence culture”. This was, of course, a misdirection. The word “consequence” suggests that a person deserves punishment for wrongdoing and that the leftists canceling him (or her) have the right to do so.

Cancel culture was never about justice or karma, it was about suppression of anyone who disagreed with the political left. A corrupt group of psychopathic people with no support from the majority is in no position to dole out consequences. They can dole out harassment and intimidation, but not justice.

In recent months, however, I think these people are finally beginning to understand what “consequence culture” really is and clearly they don’t like it.  I touched on this issue when it come to Hollywood and liberal entertainment media in my article ‘Conservative Creators: Don’t Let The Liberal Entertainment Crisis Go To Waste’, but I wanted to expand on the idea of payback for the political left and what it will mean going forward.

For example, I have to admit I can’t help but laugh over the Stephen Colbert controversy and leftists crying about violations of “free speech”. Keep in mind that a multitude of journalists and celebrities were fired, banned from public platforms and silenced for not going along with the establishment narratives on covid, open borders, the 2020 election outcome, January 6th, etc.

Leftists celebrated when FOX was pressured to fire their biggest name, Tucker Carlson, over his skepticism of the 2020 election and the “insurrection” claims surrounding J6. Carlson was mostly correct in his positions, but that didn’t matter.  The progressive view?  “It’s a private company, they can fire whoever they want…”

Now they are raging over Stephen Colbert getting the boot and losing his time slot (it’s a sign that most leftist late night hosts are facing the chopping block). Never mind that the guy’s show was bleeding around $40 million per year and his audience in the coveted 18-34 age range was shrinking into oblivion. Never mind that Colbert was acting as a shameless shill for Big Pharma. Liberals demand that his show remain in place. They demand that he never face any consequences for selling out and acting as a propagandist instead of a comedian.

Too bad. He’s toast, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Welcome to REAL consequence culture.

Within the black community there is another form of accountability taking place. The BLM movement basked in their privileged status, rampaging through cities and doing as they pleased under the protective hand of Democratic governments. In the process they destroyed whatever social capital they had left and ended decades of “white guilt” in the span of a few years.

Now, white conservatives and moderates just don’t care anymore. We don’t care about being called racist. We’re not interested in the supposed trespasses of previous generations. We’re NEVER going to pay reparations (you’re never going to see a dime), and we’re not going to tolerate ghetto behavior in shared public spaces any longer.

The term “black fatigue” has gone viral in the past month for a reason: White people are done with passively accepting bad behavior from a certain subset of blacks (many black Americans are also tired of ghetto culture and want it to end). The magical accusation of “racism” holds no power over us anymore.

Interestingly, we’re seeing this change culminating across the board, even in the corporate world. We see cruise lines banning typical ghetto habits on their ships. We see retailers abandoning predominantly black neighborhoods because of unfettered crime. We see DEI being dumped in hiring and blacks (and women) say they are being overtly affected. Well, this is what happens when you spend the last several years acting increasingly more unhinged, entitled and violent.

You were protected by a liberal narrative of historical shame, but that’s dying out. Which means people are going to start expecting you to display manners and self control. Otherwise, there will (finally) be consequences.

Illegal migrants might be the most entitled group of all. I can’t fathom a bunch of Americans entering another country illegally and then demanding access to their jobs market and welfare programs while also carrying around Americans flags in protest and asserting that they have no intention of assimilating. They would be shot in the streets in most places and no one would tolerate them.

The same standards are being enacted in the US after years of open borders. The illegals are outraged…and no one cares. There is some moderate empathy for agricultural workers, but they represent a tiny minority among the tens-of-millions of alien migrants that have invaded the US. And honestly, I really don’t care if they sweep up the farm workers, either.

America needs an immigration reset, at least for the next decade so that we can figure out what the hell happened and repair the damage done to our job markets, housing markets and wages. The media publishes sob stories regularly about illegal immigrants living within the US for 20 years or more that are suddenly facing deportation. Meaning, we’re supposed to care more about illegals that broke the law for 20 years compared to illegals that broke the law for 20 days?

No, consequences must be handed down and no one gets a pass. Not anymore.

I was also greatly amused by the recent interview with a slobbering, raving and classless Hunter Biden. Let’s not forget that Joe Biden was probably mentally vacant for a much of his presidency and ostensibly Jill Biden and Hunter were running things with their advisors behind the scenes. Is it any wonder that America was falling apart? We had a degenerate crackhead and his psychopath mommy at the helm.

The moron STILL act as if he could officially be president one day. But if it is proven that Joe Biden was mentally incompetent during his term and most of his pardon signatures were forged by aids without his cognitive understanding, then ole’ Hunter is in for some legal consequences of his own. In the meantime, the fact that the family has fallen from grace and Hunter is a national laughing stock is enough.

When I witness the wide-eyed astonishment of these people as they finally face punishment, I think of the legacy of the western world. I think of the generations of good men that worked tirelessly to institute a sense of order, principle and the conventions necessary for our society to succeed. I am reminded, time and time again, how difficult is it to create a thing vs. how easy it is to destroy a thing.  I’m reminded that our forefathers never would have put up with this shit.

In the end, civilization cannot survive and thrive unless consequences are exacted upon people who deserve them. I believe we are entering a new epoch when any person or any group, no matter their purported circumstances, will face automatic retribution for seeking to tear down the west. This is the way things used to be, and deconstructionists had best prepare themselves for the returning swing of the pendulum.

*  *  *

If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch.  Learn more about it HERE.

China’s policymakers are locked in a fight with the deflation monster, and any path to economic recovery hinges on cutting excess supply and production capacity, while reviving the ailing property sector. Tariff tensions with the U.S. have further clouded the outlook this year, adding urgency to the need for targeted stimulus. Also, authorities may ramp up fiscal support, and one of the boldest ways to do that was recently launched in the country’s most ambitious infrastructure project since the Three Gorges Dam.

According to the state-run media outlet Xinhua News Agency, Chinese Premier Li Qiang launched construction of the world’s largest dam project, with a total planned investment of 1.2 trillion yuan ($167 billion). 

Li described the multi-decade Yarlung Zangbo River dam as a “project of the century” and said special focus “must be placed on ecological conservation to prevent environmental damage.” 

On Wednesday, Guo Jiakun, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, told reporters, “To build the hydropower project in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River is fully within China’s sovereignty,” adding, “China acts with a high sense of responsibility in harnessing cross-border rivers, and has rich experience in hydropower projects. The planning, design and construction of this newly announced project strictly follows the highest national industrial standards.” 

The dam will comprise five cascade hydropower stations and is expected to begin operating in the early 2030s.

Once its generators come online, the project will dwarf the electrical output and scale of China’s Three Gorges Dam.

Via Goldman 

Timeline comparison of the Yarlung Zangbo Project vs. Three Gorges Project

In a separate note, UBS analyst Sunny Zhang highlights major sector and stock-specific beneficiaries of this new mega project. 

“We detailed the sector-specific implications of the Yarlung Zangbo Dam project, highlighting key opportunities and expected impacts across Heavy Duty Trucks, Materials, Infrastructure, and Power equipment,” the analyst noted, adding, “The key stock beneficiaries are Weichai Power, SInotruk, CNBM, Tibet Tianlu, NARI, CCCC, China Railway Group.” 

Highlights of the note:

• Heavy Duty Trucks: The project could boost annual HDT sales by 3–4%, with an estimated 35,000 additional units driven by long-cycle engineering demand. Sinotruk and Shaanxi Automobile (Weichai Power) are well positioned to benefit, especially amid strong electric HDT momentum and trade-in subsidies.

• Basic Materials: The dam’s construction is expected to drive annual demand of 4.3mt cement and 0.6mt steel, significantly lifting Tibet’s cement consumption and supporting steel producers. While earnings impact is modest, CNBM stands out with a buy rating due to its valuation and exposure, compared to neutral ratings on Conch and steel names.

• NARI: NARI could gain Rmb69 bn in revenue from the project by 2033, with contributions from hydropower equipment and ultra-high voltage infrastructure. Despite recent share gains, the long-term upside is not fully priced in; buy rating maintained with Rmb28 price target, supported by strong order growth and margin improvement.

• Construction: Around 60–70% of the Rmb1.2 trn investment will go to construction, with annual spend of Rmb80–120 bn over 10–15 years, representing 0.3–0.5% of China’s infrastructure investment. While revenue impact on covered firms is limited, policy support and low H-share valuations (0.2–0.3x PB) with 5–6% dividend yields support a cautiously optimistic outlook for the construction sector.

Another note from the bank, featuring analyst Ryoya Wakamatsu, noted: 

“While the trade truce is a plus for markets, it is also true that market participants are becoming immune to trade headlines. Sentiment is good at the moment with anti-involution focused over the last month. This week the buzz word has been the mega hydro power project on the Yarlung Zangbo River. This is a 10-year 1.2tn Yuan project to build the world’s largest dam.” 

Beijing is once again turning to its playbook of infrastructure-led stimulus to combat deflation and shore up its domestic economy. Let’s see how that works out… 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A judge on July 24 granted a reprieve to West Virginia parents whose children were being blocked from attending school because they had not received the required vaccinations.

West Virginia Circuit Judge Michael Froble issued a preliminary injunction for three sets of parents who sued the state Board of Education over its directive to school districts not to allow children with religious exemptions to attend school. The directive contradicted an executive order from the governor.

“The court believes that the compulsory vaccination law is not valid without a religious exemption, that constitutional law and constitutional review indicate that statute itself is not constitutional and is invalid without a religious exception,” Froble said from the bench during a hearing in Beckley, the Parkersburg News and Sentinel reported.

The state’s law requiring school children to receive certain vaccines states that medical exemptions must be permitted, but does not mention religious exemptions.

In the lawsuit, parents requested that the court find the law violated another state law, approved by lawmakers in 2023, that says in part that no action from the state may “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless it is essential to “further a compelling government interest.”

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey, a Republican, said in a January order that officials were refusing to let children with religious exemptions attend school, which “substantially burdens the free exercise of religion.” He directed state officials to permit religious exemptions.

The West Virginia Board of Education, in a directive to districts, said that they should continue excluding children without the required vaccines from schools unless they had medical exemptions, prompting the lawsuit.

“Big victory for religious liberty in West Virginia!” Morrisey wrote on X on Thursday. “We will continue to defend our 2023 Equal Protection for Religion law so that no child in the state is denied an education based on their religious beliefs.”

Aaron Siri, an attorney who is helping represent the parents, said on X that he was pleased with the injunction.

“We rest when every family has this freedom,” he said.

In a statement to news outlets, the West Virginia Board of Education said it was disappointed by the ruling and that members would decide on the next steps soon.

“This injunction is limited in scope and applies only to those named in this lawsuit. It will have no impact on other students in Raleigh County or throughout the state,” the board stated. “As students prepare for the upcoming school year, families are encouraged to comply with West Virginia’s compulsory vaccination laws.”

The ruling came one day after a different judge in the state dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia that challenged Morrisey’s order on religious exemptions. That suit, lodged in May, said that Morrisey lacked the power to require officials to grant religious exemptions.

The judge said that the plaintiffs in the case failed to notify the defendants at least 30 days ahead of time before suing, violating a requirement in state law.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has ordered a sharp increase in the use of GPS-enabled ankle monitors for migrants in its Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, according to a June 9 internal memo reviewed by The Washington Post. The memo directs officers to fit ankle monitors on ATD participants “whenever possible,” expanding surveillance under the Trump administration.

Roughly 183,000 migrants are currently enrolled in ATD, a program that allows them to remain out of detention while awaiting immigration hearings, according to the Washington Post. Until now, only about 24,000 wore ankle monitors. Most others used a mobile app or checked in with case managers. The memo exempts pregnant women from ankle bracelets, requiring wrist-worn devices instead.

“If the alien is not being arrested at the time of reporting, escalate their supervision level to GPS ankle monitors whenever possible and increase reporting requirements,” wrote acting assistant director Dawnisha M. Helland.

The change significantly broadens a surveillance practice ICE has used for two decades. While cheaper than detention, ankle monitors have long been criticized as stigmatizing, invasive, and physically painful.

“This will be a tool used to extend the reach of the government from just the folks it can manage to put in physical detention to an additional hundreds of thousands more that it can surveil,” said Laura Rivera of Just Futures. “It’s designed to turn their own communities and homes into digital cages.”

ICE spokeswoman Emily Covington defended ankle monitors as an “enforcement tool” to ensure compliance, adding, “More accountability shouldn’t come as a surprise.” She said decisions are still made case by case.

In practice, however, compliant migrants are increasingly being subjected to stricter monitoring without explanation. “Why are people any more of a flight risk now?” asked immigration attorney Annelise Araujo. “People who have lived in the same community, in the same home, in the same job for 20 years?”

WaPo reports that the expansion benefits private prison giant Geo Group, whose subsidiary BI Inc. runs the ATD program. Geo, which donated over $1.5 million to Trump’s campaign and inaugural committee, manufactures the monitors and employs case managers.

Geo CEO David Donahue told investors in May, “We are very well positioned” to scale up monitoring. Each monitored migrant generates $3.70 in revenue per day—potentially hundreds of millions annually.

Although ICE recently extended BI’s contract without competitive bidding, internal sources say the agency is now looking for additional vendors amid concerns BI cannot meet demand. Many monitors are old or recycled, and case managers are already stretched, with some overseeing up to 300 individuals.

Tom Homan, Trump’s former border czar and one-time consultant to Geo, is one of several officials with ties to both ICE and its contractors. A White House spokesperson said Homan recuses himself from contract discussions.

In Virginia, dozens of migrants recently waited in ICE offices to be fitted with monitors. “Everybody in here needs to either wear hardware or be detained,” one ICE official told immigration lawyer Megan Brody.

According to the American Immigration Council, 83% of non-detained migrants attended all court hearings from 2008 to 2018. Yet the ankle monitor is the only ATD tracking method that’s increased under Trump, with 4,165 added since January.

ICE says it considers factors like criminal record, compliance history, and caregiving responsibilities in assigning tracking methods. However, many say they are placed under surveillance without justification and not moved to less restrictive options even after proving reliability.

ICE may soon broaden ATD to include more types of devices and tech, depending on what it can purchase quickly. Covington declined to comment on those plans.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Demilitarization and regime change might be in the cards…

The latest clashes between Cambodia and Thailand over their decades-long border dispute, which were arguably initiated by the Thai military to restore its damaged prestige amidst a recent political scandal as explained here, could “move towards war” according to its acting Prime Minister. Thailand doesn’t recognize the International Court of Justice’s 1962 ruling in favor of Cambodia and rejects third-party mediation in the current conflict so the fighting will likely continue until it achieves some tangible goal.

That scenario would naturally raise the question of Thailand’s endgame. It’s officially only defending itself from what it claims to be Cambodia’s unprovoked aggression and cross-border incursions, but the longer that the conflict goes on for, the more likely it is that mission creep could change its stated goals. After all, the perceived security threat posed by Cambodia is intensifying, so Thailand’s goals could evolve to “demilitarizing” its neighbor and possibly even carrying out regime change to ensure that.

Former Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, who remains influential as the President of the Senate and the father of incumbent Prime Minister Hun Manet, has recently been portrayed as a bogeyman in Thailand. The narrative might thus soon be spun that he and his son’s continued rule over the country poses an enduring threat to Thailand’s security, ergo the possibly proposed solution of replacing them with a puppet regime that’ll demilitarize Cambodia and cede the disputed territories.

Hun Sen was previously demonized by the West, which he strongly implied in 2019 wanted to overthrow him at the possible cost of plunging Cambodia back into civil war, and they also claimed that he cut a secret deal with Beijing to host a Chinese naval base. It therefore wouldn’t be too difficult for Thailand to rally Western governments around a potential regime change campaign in Cambodia. In exchange for their political support, Thailand might promise to have its puppet regime distance Cambodia from China.

To be clear, this speculation about its endgame doesn’t mean that Thailand initiated the latest conflict at the West’s behest, just that the bloc’s US leader might see an opportunity if Thailand’s goals shift to regime change in the event that the conflict escalates into war. Even if this objective becomes obvious to most observers, those multipolar-friendly ones with ties to Thailand might still deny it due to fear of falling afoul of its strict lese-majeste law, which some believe is abused to stifle criticism of the military.

Similarly, due to Thailand’s much larger economy and geostrategic location at the center of the Greater Mekong Subregion, China and Russia might be reluctant to condemn this potential regime change campaign, let alone propose UNSC sanctions. Their global media ecosystems, which include independent influencers who support their worldview and rarely contradict their officials (even usually shying away from constructive critiques of their policies), might take the cue to eschew criticism of Thailand.

Thailand’s military dwarfs Cambodia’s by all metrics so it could easily sweep into Phnom Penh to depose Hun Sen and his son unless something goes wrong or Vietnam intervenes (though it too has problems with them). Public opinion in Thailand also seems to favor regime change in Cambodia, but it’s ultimately the military’s call whether or not to pursue this. They might think that now’s the perfect moment to end Cambodian-emanating threats once and for all, however, so they might very well make a push for this.

The Trump administration is taking steps to repeal a key climate policy from the Obama era, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin confirmed Wednesday, according to The Hill.

“EPA has sent to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule to repeal the 2009 endangerment finding from the Obama EPA,” Zeldin told Newsmax this week.

That 2009 determination, made under President Obama, found that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane posed a threat to public health. It provided the legal foundation for regulating emissions from vehicles and other sources under the Clean Air Act.

“Through the endangerment finding, there has been into the trillions worth of regulations, including tailpipe emissions and including electric vehicle mandates,” Zeldin said.

While Biden-era vehicle emissions standards didn’t explicitly mandate electric cars, they were expected to significantly shift the market toward them. The repeal of the endangerment finding could undercut such climate rules entirely.

The move, first reported by The New York Times, signals a major escalation in Trump’s rollback of environmental regulations. Although his first term saw the weakening of emissions limits, the endangerment finding itself remained intact—until now.

Critics warn repealing it would gut the EPA’s authority to address climate change. “We are right back to full-throated climate denialism of the early 2000s,” said Zealan Hoover, a former senior EPA advisor under Biden. He called it “insane” to deny climate change’s impacts on public health.

“Climate change impacts public health because it changes the Earth’s climate patterns in ways that are beyond both what the human body and our built systems, evolved to have been designed to adapt [to]… that looks like extreme heat… sea level rise… more damaging storm surges and even flooding on non-storm days,” Hoover added.

The 2009 endangerment finding followed a 2007 Supreme Court ruling requiring the EPA to determine whether greenhouse gases threaten public health. That ruling authorized the agency to regulate them if they did.

The Hill writes that although the agency has floated the idea of repealing the finding before, this is the first concrete proposal. In March, the EPA said it would “reconsider” the finding without specifying a direction.

The current proposal is not yet final. Formal revocation could take months or years, and the agency appears to still be developing its case. A similar recent EPA move argued that power plants’ emissions should not be considered “significant” contributors to dangerous air pollution—signaling a broader strategy to eliminate climate-based regulations.

Zeldin, during his confirmation hearing, declined to say whether he believes the EPA has a duty to regulate climate change.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Brain aging appears to have accelerated by several months during the COVID-19 pandemic, even in people who did not get sick from the virus, according to a new study.

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications on July 22, found that in 2021 and 2022, brain scans from a large UK database showed signs of aging, including brain shrinkage, even in individuals who were never infected.

Although people who had a COVID-19 infection showed some declines in overall cognitive performance, the authors said that structural brain changes were seen across a larger population.

They highlighted pandemic-related stressors, such as anxiety, social isolation, and economic and health insecurity, as possible reasons for the increase in brain aging.

The research suggested that the pandemic may have also prematurely aged some individuals’ brains by an average of 5.5 months, even among those who never contracted the virus. The impacts of the pandemic on the brain were most pronounced in men and people from “deprived socio-demographic backgrounds,” the study said.

The team analyzed brain scans collected from 15,334 healthy adults, with an average age of 63, in the UK Biobank—a long-term monitoring program—and then used machine-learning models to examine “hundreds of structural features of the participants’ brains, which taught the model how the brain looks at various ages,” the study’s lead author, Ali-Reza Mohammadi-Nejad, a researcher at the University of Nottingham, stated in a paper released alongside the study.

After that, they applied the model to a group of 996 healthy UK Biobank participants who had two brain scans at least “a couple of years apart,” he added. Some participants had one scan done before the pandemic and another following the onset of the pandemic, in early 2020, the study stated.

“What surprised me most was that even people who hadn’t had Covid showed significant increases in brain ageing rates,” Mohammadi-Nejad said in a statement. “It really shows how much the experience of the pandemic itself, everything from isolation to uncertainty, may have affected our brain health.”

The long-term impacts of the brain changes aren’t clear, the team of researchers said, but they concluded that there is a need to “address health and socio-economic inequalities in addition to lifestyle factors to mitigate accelerated brain ageing.” More research is also crucial to “improve brain health outcomes in future public health crises,” they added.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in an update several days ago that COVID-19 cases are rising in some parts of the United States, although the overall levels for the virus remain low.

COVID-19 activity, the CDC said on July 18, is now increasing in some Southeast, Southern, and West Coast states. Citing wastewater data for COVID-19, the agency said that positive tests are increasing around the United States, while emergency department visits appear to be increasing among children aged 0 to 4.

Wastewater detections for COVID-19 updated by the CDC suggest that high levels of the virus are being reported in California, Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, South Carolina, and Texas. No states were experiencing very high levels, according to a map from the agency.

President Donald Trump on Friday responded to a question posed by a reporter for the Russian TASS agency during a press conference on the White House lawn regarding nuclear weapons.

The US expects to formally engage with Russia soon on prospects for nuclear disarmament, Trump indicated, as the last remaining landmark nuclear arms control treaty between Washington and Moscow, known as New START, is in its last year. The full name is Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.

“That’s not an agreement you want expiring. We’re starting to work on that,” he told reporters outside the White House. It’s expiring “in about six months,” the TASS reporter had reminded Trump.

“It’s a problem for the world,” the president said continued in reference to its upcoming expiration of early 2026. “When you take off nuclear restrictions, that’s a big problem.”

He reiterated that he would like to see the US and Russia to cut their nuclear weapons stockpiles. Trump has since entering into office for his second term signaled repeatedly that this is an aim of his which would be good for the world and for humanity.

In March 2021 the two sides renewed New START for a period of five years, and it will expire in February 2026 if it is not continued – an increasing possibility given US-Russia relations have deteriorated so fast over the Ukraine war that they hover near complete breaking point.

Trump has made clear he wants to improve bilateral relations, despite also expressing frustration that peace talks haven’t produced fruit thus far. There could even possibly be a future face-to-face meeting with President Putin.

The New START treaty is intended to limit and reduce nuclear arms on either side, setting a limit of no more than 1,550 deployed warheads and 700 missiles.

START I began in 1991, with New START signed under the prior Obama and Medvedev administrations in 2010 as a successor agreement.

Trump’s Friday remarks in response to a question on New START:

Donald Trump: The imminent expiration of the New START treaty is a problem for the entire world.

New START is the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms. It is a bilateral agreement between Russia and the United States aimed at limiting and reducing strategic… pic.twitter.com/cIy5UI9NJp

— Webuildhome (@webuildhome_org) July 25, 2025

The past couple years have seen the terms of the treaty essentially become inactive or de facto suspended, given each side has accused the other of violating its terms over not allowing inspectors to properly investigate stockpiles on their respective soils.

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled July 24 that a California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violated the Second Amendment.

A three-judge panel ruled 2–1 that the background check requirement failed to meet the standard set by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

According to Bruen, a law must comply with the plain language of the Constitution and be analogous to laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.

Appeals Court Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and Bridget S. Bade upheld a permanent injunction issued by District Court Judge Roger T. Benetiz of the Southern District Court of California in 2020.

Judge Jay S. Bybee dissented.

The court ruled that the law regulates activity protected by the text of the Second Amendment because ammunition is necessary for the use of firearms.

“California’s ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms,” Ikuta wrote.

The court also held that “the government failed to carry its burden of showing that California’s ammunition background check regime is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

While the Supreme Court stated in Bruen that some regulation in shall-issue carry regimes may be constitutional, the Ninth Circuit ruled that this did not cover ammunition purchases.

The Appeals Court ruled that ammunition purchases are distinct from concealed carry permits for firearms. The court stated that the California law was especially burdensome because it required a background check for each ammunition purchase, regardless of when the last purchase was made.

“Because California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction,” the ruling reads.

In his dissent, Bybee wrote that the delay and expense imposed by the background check did not impede the exercise of the Second Amendment right enough to be considered an infringement.

He added that the law’s requirement of face-to-face ammunition transactions, combined with the state’s prohibition on individuals carrying ammunition across state lines, did not violate the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that objective, ‘shall-issue’ licensing regimes—like California’s—are presumptively lawful, and plaintiffs have failed to rebut that presumption,” the dissent reads.

Plaintiffs celebrated the victory, but said they are not done.

“Today’s ruling represents continued affirmation that the Bruen decision, and Heller before represent a sea change in the way courts must look at these absurdly restrictive laws,” California Rifle and Pistol Association President and General Counsel Chuck Michel said in an email to The Epoch Times.

“The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional.”

Lead plaintiff Kim Rhode—a member of the U.S. Olympic skeet and trap shooting team and six-time medalist—touted the ruling on X.

“As lead plaintiff in Rhode v. Bonta, I just defeated @CAgovernor Newsom’s ammo law… again … at the 9th Circuit. I’ve represented this country for 30 years,” she wrote.

Other plaintiffs were individuals Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, and businesses Able’s Sporting Inc. of Texas, AmDep Holdings LLC of Florida, and R&S Firearms Inc. of Arizona.

Attorney General Rob Bonta, in his official capacity, was the only defendant. His office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63. That law required a point-of-sale background check for every ammunition purchase. Buyers already in California’s firearms database paid $5 for each check; those not in the system paid $19 for a more comprehensive, one-time background check.

The law also banned individuals from buying ammunition in other states. It required all such transfers to be handled by a licensed dealer.

Benetiz found the law unconstitutional in 2020 and issued an injunction to block its enforcement. Bonta was granted a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, pausing the injunction during the appeal.

The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision, sending the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under the Bruen standard.

At Expo 2025 in Osaka, Japan is using an unexpected location—a bus terminal—to highlight its latest innovation: ultrathin “perovskite” solar panels, according to Nikkei.

More than 250 of these flexible, lightweight panels line the curved roof of the Yumeshima Transportation Terminal 1. Japan hopes this film-like solar tech will not only boost domestic renewable energy and reduce reliance on China, but also help it lead the next generation of solar innovation.

“It’s like killing three birds with one stone,” said Takayuki Taenaka of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

Photos: Nikkei Asia

Perovskite solar cells, discovered in 2009, are made from layers of chemicals just millimeters thick. Though still in early development, they rival traditional silicon-based panels in efficiency while being 20 times thinner and 10 times lighter, allowing installation on walls, rooftops, and even windows—places unsuitable for heavy panels.

“We believe this technology has the potential to beat the conventional silicon-based solar panels in terms of power generation efficiency,” said Futoshi Kamiwaki, president of Sekisui Solarfilm, which developed the panels showcased at the Expo.

Japan, with limited flat land, leads major nations in solar capacity per km² but is running out of space. Installing perovskite cells on buildings could turn cities into vertical solar farms, helping Tokyo meet its 2040 goal: 29% of power from solar, up from under 10% today.

Sekisui plans to begin commercial shipments this year and start mass production by 2027. It’s investing ¥310 billion ($2.1 billion) in a new 1GW manufacturing facility—half subsidized by the government. A further ¥5 billion is allocated to help local governments adopt the tech.

Japan aims to generate 20GW from next-gen solar by 2040, equivalent to 20 nuclear reactors.

Japan once held a 50% global share in solar panels around 2000, but by 2023, that dropped to under 1%, largely due to China’s dominance. A METI report bluntly stated the government “lacked policies” to support industry growth and supply chains.

Today, China controls over 80% of all stages in the solar manufacturing process, thanks to its dominance in polysilicon.

“There is a risk in relying on one supplier,” said Taenaka. “The fact that the main ingredient for perovskite photovoltaic (PV) is iodine, which we are a major producer of, scratches an important itch for us.”

Nikkei writes that while Japanese firms focus on flexible perovskites, Chinese giants like Jinko Solar are developing tandem perovskite-silicon cells that reach up to 33.84% efficiency, compared to Sekisui’s 15% in practice and 30% in labs.

“It’s like cooking. Even if you have a frying pan and the right ingredients, the quality… depends on how good the chef is,” said Yukihiro Kaneko of Panasonic.

Analysts say Chinese manufacturers are sticking with tandem formats for now due to massive overcapacity in polysilicon production.

“The industry already struggles a lot from overcapacity… This transition to a different technology is not happening anytime soon,” said Yana Hryshko of Wood Mackenzie.

Still, Japan’s government is backing both film-type and tandem perovskites through its Green Innovation Fund, with subsidies expected as early as 2025.

Despite the promise, cost remains the biggest barrier. Japan’s target is 10 yen per kilowatt-hour by 2040. But the global average for silicon panels is 5–6 yen, with China producing at just 2 yen.

“If the costs of perovskite panels can fall to the level of Chinese made polysilicon panels, then this Japanese technology can take off,” said Yasushi Ninomiya of the Institute of Energy Economics Japan.

BCG estimates that at 10 yen/kWh, global demand could reach 1,196 GW—nearly two-thirds of today’s total installed solar capacity.

But Japanese firms face a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: no mass market without low prices, and no low prices without mass production.

“This is an industry that will need government support to at least 2030,” said Toshiba’s Tomohiro Tobari.

“What we want to avoid policy-wise is that due to a lack of demand and a market, mass production does not happen and costs do not come down,” said Taenaka.

“We are focusing on the domestic market now, but we’ll also need to look at how to sell this technology abroad,” he added. “Many people have now witnessed this technology at the Osaka Expo. The next step is to translate those eyeballs into actual business.”