Update(1118ET): The head of the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA, Rafael Mariano Grossi, has issued fresh remarks before the Security Council on Friday, warning that Israeli strikes on Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant is where the consequences of an attack could be most serious. The active and operating nuclear power plant currently hosts thousands of kilograms of nuclear material. He warns of potential nuclear disaster:

“Countries of the region have reached out directly to me over the past few hours to express their concerns, and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear — in case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity,” Grossi tells the UN Security Council.

More highlights from Grossi’s UN address via Al Jazeera:

• Countries of the region have reached out directly to me over the past few hours to express their concerns, and I want to make it absolutely and completely clear that, in case of an attack on the Bushehr nuclear power plant, a direct hit would result in a very high release of radioactivity to the environment.
• Similarly, a hit that disables the only two lines supplying electrical power to the plant could cause its reactor core to melt, which could result in a high release of radioactivity to the environment.
• In their worst case, both scenarios would necessitate protective actions, such as evacuations and sheltering of the population, or the need to take stable iodine with a reach extending to distances from a few to several hundred kilometres. Radiation monitoring would need to cover distances of several hundred kilometres, and food restrictions may need to be implemented.
• Any action against the Tehran nuclear research reactor could also have severe consequences, potentially for large areas of the city of Tehran and its inhabitants.
• Armed attack on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with great consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state which has been attacked. I, therefore, again call for maximum restraint.

Oil facilities are still getting hit by Israeli warplanes into Friday:

#Israeli warplanes has struck the oil refinery in #Ahvaz. pic.twitter.com/cJUgAZFYF3

— Barzan Sadiq (@BarzanSadiq) June 20, 2025

* * *

A series of headlines, some contradictory, on where things stand with Iran nuclear negotiations with the US, sent oil sliding, then pumping, then extending losses again.

One senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran is ‘ready’ to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment, while a quick follow-up headline said “zero enrichment will undoubtedly be rejected” by Iran “especially now, under Israel’s strikes.”

The official said “the role of European powers is now more prominent, as Tehran is unwilling to engage with US amid Israeli attacks. After that glimmer of hope offered for negotiations, the clarification that nothing has in fact change, sent oil dropping further Friday morning.

Oil prices declined on Friday but stayed on track for a third straight weekly increase, following the White House’s postponement of a decision regarding US participation in the Israel-Iran conflict:

Brent crude futures were down $2.57, or around 3.3%, to $76.28 a barrel by 1204 GMT but still set to gain nearly 3% on the week.

According to the latest from Bloomberg:

Israel will complete the task of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons whether or not the US joins the operation, its energy minister said. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the only way to end the war is to “unconditionally” stop Israel.

And Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has clarified just before meeting European officials in Geneva related to EU efforts at mediate that “Iran is not prepared for negotiations with anyone while Israel continues its attacks.”

More Friday and overnight headlines…

* * *

Geopolitics: Middle East War

• Israel will complete the task of preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons whether or not the US joins the operation, its energy minister said. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said the only way to end the war is to “unconditionally” stop Israel, according to Bloomberg
• E3/EU-Iran meeting in Geneva expected to occur “this afternoon”, via WSJ’s Norman.
• Israeli Defence Minister Katz has ordered the military to increase attacks on Iranian regime targets within Tehran.
• Iran’s Foreign Minister says they will only hold nuclear talks in the E3 meeting.
• Russia’s Kremlin says dialogue with Ukraine continues expect to agree next week on a date for the next round of talks Ukraine is unpredictable, continue “special military operation”, though would prefer to reach goals by diplomatic needs.

US Involvement

• The White House said, “message directly from the President – based on the fact that there is a significant chance of negotiations with Iran in the near future – I will make a decision on whether to launch [an attack] in the next two weeks.”
• US President Trump had been briefed on both the risks and benefits of bombing Fordow and his mindset was that disabling it was necessary due to the risk of weapons being produced in a relatively short period of time, according to CBS.
• Broadcasting Authority, citing an Israeli source, reported that the US had asked Israel to defer its attack on the Fordow nuclear facility.
• Kann News reported that there was a “possible attack at Fordow”: according to sources, the US had asked Israel to wait until negotiations with Iran had been exhausted.
• US President Trump is to attend a National Security Meeting at 11:00 EDT on Friday.
• US law enforcement officials had stepped up surveillance of Iran-backed operatives in the US, according to CBS sources.
• The White House said Iran was able to produce a nuclear bomb within “a couple of weeks”.
• A White House official told Fox’s Heinrich that the US military had no doubt about the efficacy of bunker busters in eliminating the site at Fordow, and also denied that any options—including tactical nuclear weapons—had been taken off the table.
• The White House Press Secretary said there were no signs that China was getting involved militarily in Iran, according to Reuters.
• The US reportedly believed Iran would build a nuclear bomb if Supreme Leader Khamenei were assassinated and the Fordow facility was attacked, according to The New York Times.

Strikes

• There were reports of Israeli strikes in the Lavizan area of Tehran, where Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei was reportedly hiding in a bunker, according to i24 journalist Stein.
• An Israeli military spokesman said Israel had attacked the special forces headquarters of the internal security apparatus in Tehran within the last 24 hours, according to Reuters.
• Journalist Horowitz said on X that opposition sources were circulating “unconfirmed” reports claiming that the head of Iran’s military, Abdolrahim Mousavi, had been killed in an Israeli strike.
• The Fars News Agency said Iran had used a new generation of precision missiles in its attack on Israel on Thursday morning, according to Fars.
• The Norwegian Foreign Ministry said an explosion had occurred on Thursday evening in Tel Aviv at the residence of the Norwegian ambassador to Israel, according to Reuters.
• The Jordanian army said an explosives-laden drone had fallen in the Azraq area after it “fell short of its range,” according to Al Hadath.
• Iranian media reported that air defences were activated in Isfahan, according to Al Arabiya.

Diplomacy

• Britain, France, and Germany are to hold talks with Iran’s Foreign Minister on Friday in a last-ditch effort to avert an escalation of conflict in the Middle East and a possible US intervention, according to FT.
• Iran’s Foreign Minister had reached out to European foreign ministers, requesting a meeting with them on Friday, Jerusalem Post reported.
• Trump administration officials are pitching the president’s two-week timeline as an opportunity to allow diplomacy to play out. Special Envoy Witkoff and Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi had been in communication in recent days, though there were no plans for the two to meet yet, according to ABC.
• Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Witkoff will not attend the UK/France/Germany talks with Iran in Geneva on Friday, according to White House officials cited by NBC.
• An Iranian source denied reports of a phone call between Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi and US presidential envoy Witkoff following Israel’s aggression, according to Iran Nuances.
• The White House Press Secretary said they would see how the EU meeting with the Iranians went tomorrow, according to Reuters.
• US officials said no date had been set for a meeting between US and Iranian officials yet, according to Axios.

US Military and Deployment

• Over the next 10 to 14 days, there were expected to be two aircraft carriers in the Middle East and a third operating in the Mediterranean Sea, according to ABC.

Iranian Actions

• A senior IRGC official said that before the Israeli airstrikes, all enriched uranium had been transferred from the nuclear sites to secret hiding locations, according to i24 journalist Stein.
• Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, quoting an Iranian official, said intelligence had thwarted a major Israeli plot against Iranian Foreign Minister Araqchi in Tehran, according to Sky News Arabia.
• Iraq’s Hezbollah threatened to target US bases and close the Strait of Hormuz if Washington joined strikes on Iran, according to Al Hadath.
• An Israeli official said Iran could likely sustain the current rate of missile fire at Israel for up to five months, provided their missile launchers were not destroyed, according to NBC.
• Israel anticipated attacks from Iran’s proxies across the Middle East, according to Israel Channel 14.
• An Israeli intelligence official said the imminent collapse of the Iranian regime was far from the truth, according to NBC.

Geopolitics: Other

• A Japanese destroyer sailed through the Taiwan Strait after a Chinese jet approached it, according to Nikkei.
• China President Xi met with New Zealand PM Luxon in Beijing, according to CCTV.

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The narrative surrounding the “dollar’s death” as the world’s reserve currency has been on the rise recently. However, this happens whenever the dollar declines relative to other currencies. We previously wrote about the false claims of the “dollar’s death” in 2023 (see here, here, and here). The recent decline in the dollar relative to other currencies is well within historical norms. Notably, previous declines were much larger without the “fear-mongering” from the “experts of doom.”

The “dollar’s death” frequently appears in financial discussions. Of course, that is often when geopolitical tensions, economic disruption, or market fluctuations are on the rise. Yes, there are valid concerns about the U.S. dollar’s long-term dominance. However, the notion that the dollar’s death is imminent, leading to a catastrophic economic collapse, is vastly overstated. The dollar remains the cornerstone of global finance due to structural, economic, and geopolitical factors unlikely to shift abruptly. Below, I outline five reasons why the dollar’s death narrative is exaggerated.

Five Reasons the Dollar’s Death Narrative Is Overstated

1. Lack of a Viable Alternative Currency – The dollar’s reserve status persists because no credible rival exists. The euro, holding 20% of global reserves compared to the dollar’s ~58% (IMF, Q2 2024), is constrained by the eurozone’s fragmented bond markets and political volatility. Despite increasing use (2–3% of reserves), China’s renminbi is limited by capital controls and restricted convertibility, rendering it unfit for global reserve status. Other currencies, such as the Japanese yen (6%) or smaller ones like the Canadian or Australian dollar, lack the economic scale or liquidity to challenge the dollar. Without a currency matching the dollar’s deep, liquid markets and global trust, the dollar’s death remains improbable in the near term.

2. Strength of the U.S. Economy – The U.S. economy, accounting for 26% of global GDP, anchors the dollar’s dominance. Its large, dynamic economy, supported by the rule of law and robust capital markets, positions the dollar as a haven, particularly during global instability. While critics highlight rising U.S. debt ($35 trillion, ~120% of GDP), the dollar’s reserve status enables borrowing at lower rates, sustaining deficits without immediate crisis. Compared to other economies—Japan’s slow growth, China’s restricted markets, or Europe’s fragmentation—the U.S. offers stability, making the dollar’s death unlikely in the foreseeable future.

3. Network Effects and Global Financial Inertia – Network effects perpetuate the dollar’s dominance: its widespread use enhances its value. It constitutes ~88% of global foreign exchange transactions (SWIFT data) and ~60% of international debt and trade invoicing. Transitioning to another currency would demand extensive coordination among central banks, governments, and markets, incurring significant costs and risks. Historical currency transitions, such as from the pound to the dollar, spanned decades and required major geopolitical shifts, which are absent today. This inertia renders the dollar’s death a distant prospect.

4. Limited Scope of De-Dollarization Efforts – Although countries like China, Russia, and BRICS nations advocate for trade in local currencies (e.g., China’s renminbi in 56% of its bilateral trade), these efforts have limited global impact. The dollar’s share of reserves has dipped gradually (from 67% to 58% over two decades). However, this reflects diversification, not the dollar’s death, often into allied currencies like the Canadian or Australian dollar. China holds ~$2 trillion in dollar-denominated assets, underscoring its reliance. Geopolitical moves, such as Russia’s shift to gold or renminbi, are constrained by the small scale of non-dollar systems (e.g., China’s CIPS vs. SWIFT). These fragmented efforts fall short of triggering the dollar’s death.

5. Resilience Amid Policy Challenges – Critics argue that U.S. policies—like tariffs, sanctions, or Federal Reserve actions—undermine confidence in the dollar. For instance, Trump’s tariffs in 2025 caused a ~9% dollar decline, fueling dollar death fears. However, economists note such fluctuations are cyclical, not structural, with the dollar still robust compared to its 2011–2022 peak (up ~40% against a currency basket). Sanctions, such as those on Russia in 2022, have not significantly reduced global dollar holdings, as most reserve currencies are held by U.S. allies who joined sanctions. The Federal Reserve’s swap lines and liquidity support further reinforce the dollar’s role in crises.

As shown, the dollar dominates the composition of global currency transactions.

However, there is a reason that the recent dollar decline could be nearing its end.

Why The Dollar Could Rally Strongly

This isn’t the first time the “dollar’s death” has made the news. In 2022, “de-dollarization” narratives filled the bearish narratives, with everyone saying the dollar’s death was imminent. Yet, that “frenzy of doom” marked the bottom of the dollar before a robust rally. We could be setting up for another similar rally for two reasons.

First, from the technical perspective, the dollar selloff has become rather extreme. Using weekly data, the dollar is now oversold on a momentum basis as it was in early 2021 and late 2018. These previous oversold conditions set the dollar up for a strong counter-trend rally.

Furthermore, everyone from the “shoe-shine boy to the street corner vendor” is shorting the dollar. According to BofA’s fund manager survey, the short position against the US Dollar is at the highest level in 20 years. As such, any reversal in the dollar could be substantial if those “shorts” are forced to reverse their positions.

The question is, what must change for a dollar price reversal currently? That brings us to the second reason the dollar could rally: the ECB’s rate cuts.

As the reserve currency, foreign sovereign nations hold reserves in U.S. dollars to facilitate trade. If the dollar is too weak or strong relative to another currency, it can negatively impact that nation’s economy. Therefore, when the dollar drifts too far from another currency, that country can intervene to stabilize its currency. That intervention is achieved by increasing or decreasing U.S. dollar reserves. It can do this by buying or selling U.S. Treasuries, gold, or other dollar-denominated assets. In the majority of cases, it is either U.S. treasuries or gold.

The ECB has been aggressively cutting rates, eight times in this recent cycle, while the U.S. Federal Reserve remains on hold. The result is a divergence that is developing between U.S. Treasury bond yields and, for example, the German Bund.

There are three primary reasons this is crucial for investors to understand.

1. Higher Yields Attract Capital Inflows – Historically, rising U.S. Treasury yields draw foreign investment due to higher returns compared to other major economies’ bonds. For instance, 10-year Treasury yields surged from 3.65% in September 2024 to 4.8% by early 2025. However, European bond yields (e.g., German 10-year Bunds) remain lower due to ECB easing. This yield differential incentivizes foreign investors, including central banks and institutional investors, to buy Treasuries. That buying increases dollar demand and supports appreciation.

2. Treasuries as a Preferred Store of Foreign Reserves – As noted above, U.S. Treasuries are the backbone of global foreign exchange reserves. Higher yields offer reserve managers better returns without sacrificing safety, unlike riskier assets like equities or emerging market bonds. For example, foreign demand for Treasuries has remained stable despite ECB rate cuts. This sustained demand supports the dollar, as central banks must buy dollars to purchase Treasuries, reinforcing its status as a reserve currency.

3. Dollar Appreciation Driven by Yield Differentials – The divergence in monetary policy—ECB’s dovish stance versus the Fed’s pause after 100 basis points of cuts in late 2024—has widened the interest rate gap, favoring the dollar. Higher U.S. yields, particularly on 10-year Treasuries (4.4–4.8% in early 2025), contrast with lower European yields, which could drive capital flows to the U.S. The demand for yield aligns with historical patterns where higher U.S. rates bolster the DXY, as seen during the 2016 post-election period when fiscal optimism pushed yields and the dollar higher. Despite tariff-related volatility, the dollar’s recent appreciation suggests that yield differentials are a key support.

The critical point is that this would be an attractive set-up for sovereign governments, wealth funds, and foreign investors. As foreign inflows are initially used to capture higher bond yields, investors also receive a double benefit of currency gains and higher bond prices (lower yields).

However, the dollar’s death narrative persists due to recent decoupling trends. Yields rose as the dollar weakened in early 2025, driven by fiscal concerns and tariff uncertainty. These recent concerns will pass, but the dollar’s role as a reserve currency for world trade will not.

Addressing the Dollar’s Death Narrative and Economic Implications

The dollar’s death narrative often arises from concerns about U.S. debt, inflation, tariffs, or the geopolitical use as a weapon of the dollar (e.g., sanctions). These risks exist, but overstate their near-term impact. Losing reserve status could elevate U.S. borrowing costs, drive inflation through pricier imports, and diminish geopolitical influence. Still, the U.S. economy’s scale, military strength, and institutional stability make the dollar’s death improbable without a seismic global event (e.g., the loss of a major war as witnessed in the Weimar Republic). Despite a gradual decline, the dollar would likely remain a leading currency alongside others and would not vanish entirely.

This narrative is often amplified on platforms and media outlets that depend on “bearish narratives” to get clicks and views. While some posts exaggerate the “dollar’s death” to promote alternatives like gold or cryptocurrencies, these narratives are often misleading. Economists like Barry Eichengreen and Morgan Stanley’s James Lord contend that the dollar’s death is “greatly exaggerated,” citing its entrenched role and the absence of viable alternatives, as discussed above. Sure, the U.S. economy could face challenges from a weaker dollar, but a devastating collapse is unlikely due to its adaptability and global financial integration.

Most notably, as discussed in “Narratives Change, Markets Don’t,” it is essential to look past narratives to avoid the emotional biases that impact our investing outcomes. To wit:

“The need for a narrative is deeply rooted in our psychology. As pattern-seeking creatures, we crave coherence and predictability. Chaos triggers anxiety. It feels dangerous, uncontrollable, and unsettling. In investing, this anxiety is magnified by the direct impact on our wealth and financial security. We regain a semblance of control by latching onto the narrative, no matter how tenuous. The narrative tells us why things are happening and what might happen next, which soothes our natural fear of uncertainty.”

Humans are hardwired to prioritize negative information over optimistic information. From an evolutionary perspective, this bias was essential. Our ancestors learned to recognize threats (like predators) to survive. 

This instinct, known as “negativity bias,” influences how we process information, including financial news and market narratives. Such is why “bearish” leaning podcasts and articles generate the most clicks and views.

• Fear Is a Stronger Motivator Than Greed – While the hope of making money drives investors, the fear of losing money is more powerful.

• Bearish Narratives Seem More “Rational” – Pessimism often feels safer and more cautious. During volatile markets, a bearish forecast can sound more analytical and responsible.

• Media Amplifies Negative Headlines – News outlets know that fear sells. Sensational headlines like “MARKETS IN TURMOIL” or “CRASH COMING?” generate clicks and engagement.

• Herd Behavior and Echo Chambers – Investors flock to bearish opinions for validation when markets are shaky. If others are cautious or fearful, this reinforces the idea that a downturn is imminent. This is the case even if the underlying fundamentals remain sound. Social media and financial news create echo chambers that amplify these fears.

Most importantly to investors, the market absorbs all negative media narratives over the long term. The recent barrage of narratives surrounding debts, deficits, tariffs, and the “dollar’s death” feeds your negative bias. However, zooming out, investors who have stayed away from investing in the financial markets to “avoid the loss” of potential adverse outcomes have paid a dear price in reduced financial wealth.

In other words, there is always a “reason” not to invest. However, the current narrative will change, but the market won’t. 

*  *  *

For more in-depth analysis and actionable investment strategies, visit RealInvestmentAdvice.com. Stay ahead of the markets with expert insights tailored to help you achieve your financial goals.

The USS Nimitz carrier strike group is en route to Middle East waters and is expected to arrive this weekend, a US official tells Fox news on Friday, after the carrier departed the South China Sea on Monday.

This is the latest confirmation that the US Navy will now have two aircraft carriers in the Middle East at the same time. While reports previewed this movement earlier this week, making it no surprise, this is the first revelation of a more precise timeline.

As for the prior reporting via military sources, Stars & Stripes stated, “The aircraft carrier and its strike group left Bremerton, Wash., in March for the Indo-Pacific region for what is expected to be the ship’s final deployment. Now, the Nimitz and the warships sailing with it will join the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the Middle East, the defense official said.

Currently, the USS Carl Vinson is already positioned in the Arabian Sea, while the Navy has also lately confirmed deployment of the carrier USS Gerald R. Ford to the Mediterranean, presumably as ‘back-up’ – though that mission had long been shechuled.

As for the Nimitz, its is currently underway westbound from the Strait of Malacca. So this will place in total three carriers within reach of the Middle East theatre of operations.

Stars & Stripes has recently offered the following background on the last week of the Iran-Israel aerial war:

Each carrier strike group typically brings with it one attack submarine, one cruiser and two or more destroyers, in addition to an air wing of F/A-18 Super Hornets and (on some carriers) F-35 Lightning strike fighters. The overall package delivers a powerful land-attack punch, but also enhances regional air defense with a combination of anti-aircraft, anti-drone and anti-ballistic-missile capabilities. 

Two destroyers operating in Central Command have already been involved in defeating Iranian ballistic missile attacks on Israel over the past week, a Navy official told Norfolk’s WAVY. USS The Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke both expended interceptors over the weekend to shoot down Iranian attacks, the official confirmed. 

President Trump conveyed via the White House Press Secretary on Thursday afternoon that he will make a decision on striking Iran within the next two weeks.

Trump words and ‘warning’ to Tehran were as follows: “Based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Oh, the places you’ll go

You have brains in your head.
You have feet in your shoes.
You can steer yourself
any direction you choose.
You’re on your own. And you know what you know.
And YOU are the guy who’ll decide where to go.

Asian and European stocks closed in the red yesterday following a Wall Street Journal report that Donald Trump had approved a plan to attack Iran, but was withholding final authorization in the hope that Iran would agree to abandon it’s nuclear program. 

The US has recently moved substantial military assets into the region, including the USS Nimitz carrier strike group (bringing the number of carrier groups in the region to 3), up to 30 tanker aircraft, and several B2 bombers deployed to the Diego Garcia Indian Ocean base. The BBC reports that the B2 is capable of carrying the ‘Massive Ordinance Penetrator’ (MOP) bunker buster bombs that may be suitable for striking Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, located Dr Evil-style under a mountain.

Trump took to Truth Social yesterday to rubbish the report, saying “The Wall Street Journal has No Idea what my thoughts are concerning Iran!”

You’ll look up and down streets. Look ‘em over with care.
About some you will say, “I don’t choose to go there.”
With your head full of brains, and your shoes full of feet,
You’re too smart to go down any not-so-good street.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Levitt told journalists on Thursday afternoon that President Trump would make a decision on strikes within the next two weeks, prompting something of a recovery in US equity futures, a selloff in the DXY index and a minor reduction in US, Aussie and Kiwi bond yields. The decision will be complicated by the fact that Trump ran on a platform of ending “forever wars”, especially in the Middle East.

With the US only recently having extricated itself from a decades-long deployment in Afghanistan, prompting the country to fall swiftly back into the status quo ante bellum, the last thing the President needs is to get bogged down in another extended conflict in the Middle East.

Trump recently posted “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” to Truth Social while also claiming that the US knows exactly where Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei is hiding. Having reportedly dissuaded Israel from attempting assassination of Khamenei, Trump said that the US will not “take him out… at least for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin.” That patience may be wearing even more thin after Iranian missiles struck an Israeli hospital in Beersheba yesterday, and Israel has again raised the prospect that it may seek to target Khamenei unilaterally.

And you may not find any
you’ll want to go down,
In that case, of course,
you’ll head straight out of town.

In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, former Trump Rasputin Steve Bannon railed against the prospect of US strikes on Iran. Bannon urged Trump to resist pressure from Neocons to step up American involvement, arguing that the idea runs counter to the Trump program of rolling back the imperial frontier and focusing on ‘hemispheric defense’ of the American homeland.

You will come to a place where the streets are not marked.
Some windows are lighted. But mostly they’re darked.
A place you could sprain both your elbow and chin!
Do you dare to stay out? Do you dare to go in?

Trump now faces something of a Sophie’s Choice. If he declines to initiate strikes Iran could plausibly sprint for a nuclear weapon that would pose an existential threat to Israel and perhaps encourage Saudi Arabia to pursue nuclear arms of its own. If he conducts limited strikes on Fordo and elsewhere they may not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program and the Hydra’s heads will undoubtedly grow back, leaving America to face the same conundrum again in the future. If he opts for extensive involvement and possible regime change, he runs the risk of squandering American blood and treasure in another Middle Eastern quagmire, fracturing the MAGA base and creating a power vacuum in central Asia with the potential for fissile material to remain unaccounted for. This could look like Russia in the 1990s, but worse.

And IF you go in, should you turn left or right…
or right-and-three-quarters? Or, maybe, not quite?
Or go around back and sneak in from behind?
Simple it’s not, I’m afraid you will find,
For a mind maker-upper to make up his mind.

Meanwhile, representatives of France, Germany and the UK will hold talks with Iran’s Foreign Minister today in what the FT describes as a last ditch attempt to prevent escalation of the conflict. UK Foreign Minister Lammy will reportedly deliver a US message that the diplomatic route remains open, with some prospect of reviving a deal for Iran to continue its nuclear program under international supervision. 

Such a deal would have more than a few hairs on it given Iran’s history of illegally carrying on enrichment activities well beyond the level required for civilian applications at facilities kept secret from international inspectors. Iranian enrichment capability has been a red-line for both the US and Iran. Consequently, Iran may gamble that the US has no stomach for direct strikes and will revive its negotiating tactic of 20 years or more: waiting out Western powers in the expectation that if a deal is not agreed, more favourable terms will be offered soon enough.

Headed, I fear, toward a most useless place.
the Waiting Place…
…for people just waiting.

Markets are now in that useless waiting place. Brent crude had been remarkably stable throughout the Asian session yesterday before catching a bid from the European open. Prices are down a little more than 2% this morning. European gasoil futures have plunged 4.5% since market open, but remain more than 4% higher over the last 3 trading days as markets judge that Europe is likely to be among the biggest losers from possible interruptions to Middle Eastern energy supplies. A similar theme is playing out in Dutch TTF natural gas futures.

I’m afraid that some times
you’ll play lonely games too.
Games you can’t win
‘cause you’ll play against you.

In other market-related news the Bank of England kept the Bank Rate unchanged at 4.25%. That outcome will shock nobody, but the 6-3 vote split was a little more dovish than previous 7-2 splits and perhaps signals that a consensus is building for a cut in August. The limits of monetary policy may again be explored if Iran makes good on renewed threats overnight to close the Strait of Hormuz. Unfortunately, central banks can’t print oil or gas.

Meanwhile, ahead of next week’s NATO summit, Spain has balked at NATO Chief Mark Rutte’s plan for 3.5% defence spending, describing it as “unreasonable” as it would be incompatible with Spain’s welfare state and vision of the world. The penny seems to have dropped on guns or butter choices, and Spain wants to choose butter. 

That comes as the EU is reportedly considering a UK-style trade agreement with the US with a 10% reciprocal tariff and negotiated export quotas to avoid sectoral tariffs. Will Ursula von der Leyen be able to get even that deal over the line if Spain is recalcitrant on defence?

Elsewhere, in another hit to elegant ideas of Ricardian free trade, Canada has just announced tariff rate quotas of 100% of 2024 levels on imports of steel products from non FTA origins, applied retroactively. The Canadian government has also said that it will put in place local content requirements for government projects and will increase tariffs on US steel and aluminium from July 21st to match US duties on Canadian product. That is sure to go down poorly in Washington.

So, while the world remains on tenterhooks over whether or not the US will bomb Iran’s nuclear mountain lair, the paradigm shift in global trade and economics continues. Let us join the dots for you by saying that geopolitics and geoeconomics are now the same thing, and attempting to negotiate them separately is unlikely to work.

And will you succeed?
Yes! You will, indeed!
(98 and ¾ per cent guaranteed.)
KID, YOU’LL MOVE MOUNTAINS!

We described earlier that the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has reportedly informed American officials that destroying Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear facility might require the use of a nuclear weapon, based on The Guardian.

Officials, briefed on the limitations of the GBU-57 — a 30,000-pound conventional bunker-buster bomb — are worried that even if President Trump give the order it may not be powerful enough to reach and destroy the deeply buried site.

The report described that conventional bombs might have to be used to soften the terrain, followed by the dropping of a tactical nuclear weapon from a B-2 stealth bomber.

The latest reporting has sought to clarify that President Trump is not considering the nuclear option, nor has it yet to be formally presented to him by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. From fresh ‘anonymous’ White House statement present contradictory information.

So very quickly, here we are… there’s prominent public discourse about the ‘possibility’ or eventual ‘necessity’ of a nuclear bomb. As the Quincy Institute’s Eli Clifton observes:

It’s disturbing but not surprising how the entire Executive Branch communications apparatus can be activated into total war-hysteria mode seemingly overnight.

Israel is urging the US under Trump to target Fordow with whatever it takes, given it lacks the capability to carry out such a strike.

But at least it’s ‘comforting’ that a tactical nuke is off the table, for now… or wait:

“none of the options are off the table” – a fresh FOX report claims, citing a senior White House official.

Heinrich on Iran: An article stated that Trump was not considering a tactical nuke— that it was not one of the options that was presented to him. I was just told by a top official here that none of that report is true— that none of the options are off the table pic.twitter.com/rk6cFj4cIb

— Acyn (@Acyn) June 19, 2025

All this is premised on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim that Iran is in fact pursuing a nuclear weapon.

Dangerously the White House seems to be siding with Israeli intelligence over the assessment of the US intelligence community, as presented by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who may have already been sidelined in White House Situation Room discussions.

* * *

The Publication Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists are meanwhile warning that it’s possible that the Fordow enrichment facility could be destroyed and yet still it won’t make the Iranian nuclear threat go away…

If the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program, started on June 13, is to prove successful in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons, then a necessary—but not sufficient—step will involve the elimination of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant.

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days. Perhaps more important, Fordow itself is a hardened facility, built within a mountain and protected from many forms of attack. It could—in theory—continue to operate even after other nuclear facilities in the country have been destroyed, with its material then fueling nuclear weapons to be produced clandestinely.

If Israel decides to continue down the military path against Iran’s nuclear program, it has no choice but to ensure that the Fordow enrichment plant no longer poses a threat.

“The United States may destroy the Fordow enrichment plant. It won’t make the Iranian nuclear threat go away,” by @RichardMNephew. ⬇️https://t.co/2q46HIWPn4

— Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (@BulletinAtomic) June 18, 2025

Full Bulletin report here.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The Fed does not “predict”, but its GDP projections say “yes”…

Year-over-year GDP data from the BEA, chart by Mish.

The Fed’s Summary of Economic Projections (SEP),shows its median fourth-quarter year-over GDP projection was 1.4 percent.

“Projections of change in real gross domestic product (GDP) and projections for both measures of inflation are percent changes from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.”

In March, the Fed’s GDP projection for 2024 was 1.7 percent. It’s now 1.4 percent.

At first glance, 1.4 percent does not suggest recession. A closer look says otherwise.

Since 1948, there have been 12 recessions. And since 1948 there have only been three false positive instances in which year-over-year GDP declined from above 3.0 percent to 1.4 percent or lower in which there was not a recession.

Year-Over-Year GDP at Recession Start

Of the 12 recessions since 1948, 10 of them started with year-over-year GDP in positive territory.

Excluding the Covid collapse, the average of 11 instances has year-over-year GDP at the start of recession at 1.2 percent.

Predict may not be the correct word, but the Fed’s economic projections strongly suggest recession.

Fed’s Counterproductive Actions

The Fed’s battles to prevent recessions have created economic bubbles of increasing amplitude over time.

Stock market and housing prices are beyond insane and the consensus bet appears to be that the Fed will act to keep them that way.

Fed Projects Higher Unemployment and Higher Inflation Citing Tariffs

Yesterday, I noted Fed Projects Higher Unemployment and Higher Inflation Citing Tariffs

The Fed’s outlook has soured vs its March forecast. “We expect a meaningful rise in inflation in the coming months,” said Powell.

Regarding jobs, Powell said the labor force, participation rate, wages are all at “healthy levels”.

“You can see perhaps a very slow cooling but nothing that troubling at this time.”

Apparently Powell believes BLS statistics. I don’t. He does not see the train coming down the tracks.

Click on the preceding link for more Fed projections.

I commented “There’s a very good chance unemployment arrests the Fed’s expected inflation. But that assumes I am correct on weakening jobs.“

Also short-term is one thing and long-term another.

The Fed has destroyed housing with inept QE to the moon, and Congress is about to whip up inflation with Trump’s One Big Beautiful Act. Finally, Trump is doing his part with inept tariff policy.

I would not want to be in Powell’s shoes.

In June 2009 the Obama Administration officially designated the month of June as “Pride Month”, and with a snap of his fingers and billions of dollars in government subsidies, the concept slowly turned into a cultural plague, much like an annual flu that sticks around for three weeks longer than it should.

By the time Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden, entered the White House in 2021, pride parades were heavily funded events backed by federal agencies like USAID along with numerous corporations looking for ESG points and easy money.  After the BLM riots, Democrats were looking for a way to cement the minority vote in their favor while also continuously pressing racial division. 

The Biden Admin decided to federally recognize “Juneteenth”, a “celebration” of the emancipation of slaves that no one had ever heard of until the Democrats made it official.

Rather than acting as a tool for racial healing, Juneteenth has become yet another attempt to incessantly inject racial conflict as its proponents assert that white Americans today need to pay for the slavery of centuries ago.  Never mind that white Americans fought a bloody civil war in part to end the practice.  Never mind that it’s an institution that existed for thousands of years before the US was founded, yet progressives seem to think slavery is exclusively American.  

No one in the west needs a reminder that slavery is bad. 

The artificial popularity of these DEI events has been made evident this June with the erasure of bureaucratic handouts and a sharp pullback in corporate participation.  Juneteenth has been a dud in 2025 and the political left is not happy about it.  

Huffington Post notes that the decline in monetary support is aggressive, but progressives have their own theories on why it’s happening.

“After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, many companies pursued efforts to make their branding more inclusive, but it has slowed down over the past few years after some received blowback from conservatives and because many companies didn’t see it as an important part of their revenue stream, said Dionne Nickerson, a professor in marketing at Emory University. 

Some companies can no longer afford to support Juneteenth celebrations because they just don’t have the money given the economic uncertainty, according to Sonya Grier, a marketing professor at American University…”

“Many state and local governments hold or help fund celebrations, but some decided not to this year…”

The Post also mentions that cuts to federal funds might just be the cause of the downturn in Junteenth events.  Though, it’s unlikely that the establishment media will ever admit the underlying truth: That almost no one is going to engage in DEI events without loads of government cash floating around. 

“Many local organizations have also had their budgets slashed after the National Endowment for the Arts pulled funding for numerous grants in May. 

The Cooper Family Foundation throws one of the largest Juneteenth celebrations in San Diego each year. It was one of dozens of groups told by the NEA in May that its $25,000 grant was being rescinded.  The email said the event no longer aligned with the agency’s priorities, said Maliya Jones, who works for the foundation…”

The NEA announced in February that they would end all grants for DEI related programs and they have made good on their word.  Leftists argue that the “fight must continue” without the aid of companies and government cash, but the reality is that there is no fight.  Black Americans have had equal rights for many decades and there is nothing for activists to achieve.  

What DEI events are really about is fomenting a false sense of victimhood and endless civil instability.  Activists need the “fight” to continue forever, because cultural conflict is how they make their money and how they gain political leverage.  Thankfully, the majority of the American public has no interest in playing this game and Juneteenth will inevitably go back into obscurity.     

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

Multiple people who until early June served on a federal vaccine advisory committee cast votes on vaccines despite receiving or recently receiving money from pharmaceutical companies that stood to be affected by the votes, according to an Epoch Times review.

Dr. Helen Y. Chu, a professor of medicine and allergy and infectious diseases at the University of Washington, reported throughout 2024 receiving funds from Merck, among other pharmaceutical companies. In October 2024, in her first meeting as a member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), Chu voted in favor of expanding recommendations for vaccination against pneumococcal disease.

Merck manufactures multiple pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.

Chu did not submit any conflict of interest disclosures for the meeting, according to a CDC database.

ACIP advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines. Members “are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that arise in the course of ACIP tenure,” according to the CDC’s website. Members who declare perceived or actual conflicts of interest, the site says, “will be asked to recuse themselves from participating in the discussion and decision-making of the issues relating to that interest.”

ACIP rules state that to be considered for appointment to the panel, potential members must resign from any roles with a vaccine manufacturer, with exceptions for service on data monitoring boards and participation in clinical trials. The rules refer to a federal law that says special government employees such as ACIP members are barred by criminal statute “from participating personally and substantially in an official capacity in any particular matter in which, to his knowledge, he or any other person specified in the statute has a financial interest, if the particular matter will have a direct and predictable effect on that interest.”

Chu has outlined payments from Merck in conflict-of-interest disclosures for numerous studies. In a study published in August 2024, several months before the ACIP vote, Chu reported “consulting with” Merck. In another paper, received by a journal on Nov. 7, 2024—two weeks after the ACIP meeting—she reported “receiving personal fees” from a number of companies and groups, including Merck and Pfizer. In other papers in 2024 and 2025, Chu said she has served on an advisory board for Merck and received advisory board fees.

Chu is listed in another government database, which compiles payment records for physicians, as receiving $3,255 from Merck in 2023 and $4,899 from Merck in 2019, primarily for consulting.

That database has not yet published information for 2024.

Chu did not respond to requests for comment.

Chu and the other 16 ACIP members dismissed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earlier in June said in an article published on June 16 that ACIP procedures “have minimized the risk of alleged conflicts of interest and biases” and that “statements about potential conflicts were required during each meeting and before each vote, and members recused themselves from voting if any conflicts were identified.”

Other Members

Other dismissed members also voted on vaccines even though they recently received funds from at least one company that stood to be affected by the votes, The Epoch Times review found.

Dr. Edwin Jose Asturias, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Public Health, and Dr. Lin H. Chen, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, reported receiving thousands of dollars from Merck through at least 2023.

Both participated in the same 2024 vote on pneumococcal vaccination as Chu.

Chen also received $43,462 through at least 2023 from Valneva, which makes a chikungunya vaccine.

She abstained in April from voting on that shot.

“No conflict, but to avoid possible perception of conflict of interest for past [work] on chikungunya trials, I will abstain,” she said.

At a mid-2024 meeting, Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, professor of pediatrics, epidemiology, and population health at Stanford University’s School of Medicine, recused from votes on COVID-19, influenza, and pneumococcal vaccines because she was the principal investigator for trials for vaccines against COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus, and varicella, including Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine trial.

Months later, in the October 2024 meeting, Maldonado supported the expansion of pneumococcal vaccination recommendations and cast a vote in favor of advising the CDC to recommend more COVID-19 vaccine doses.

Maldonado reported $997,800 in research funding from Pfizer in 2023, according to the Open Payments database. She received $6,682 from Merck in 2023.

Dr. Oliver Brooks, CEO of Watts Healthcare Corporation in California, joined the latter vote. He reported receiving approximately $44,000 from Sanofi Pasteur through at least 2023. Under an agreement signed in 2024, Sanofi is assisting Novavax in commercializing its COVID-19 vaccine.

Chen, Maldonado, the University of Colorado School of Public Health, and Watts Healthcare did not return inquiries.

“Having a conflict-of-interest does not mean that people’s decisions will be biased but it creates the impression that the decisions could be biased and that undermines public confidence,” Dr. Joel Lexchin, an associate professor in the University of Toronto’s Department of Family and Community Medicine, who has studied conflicts of interest, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“To remove that impression, the most optimal way to move forward is to avoid the conflict but if that can’t be done then people must manage the conflict. In this case, that would be by abstaining on the vote,” added Lexchin, who assessed the situations of Chen and Maldonado.

Lexchin also said the members should have refrained from participating in discussions on the vaccines.

Another former ACIP member, Noel T. Brewer, a professor in public health at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, has disclosed in recent papers past work as a paid consultant for Moderna, Novavax, and Sanofi, which make or are involved with COVID-19 vaccines, as well as Merck. It’s not clear when the work was done.

Brewer, who did not respond to a request for comment, voted in favor of expanding pneumococcal and COVID-19 vaccination guidance.

Asturias, Brewer, Brooks, Chen, Chu, and Maldonado also all voted in 2024 to approve new versions of the childhood and adult immunization schedules. The schedules include pneumococcal, COVID-19, respiratory syncytial virus, and varicella vaccines. None declared conflicts of interest.

Timing of Conflicts

Potential ACIP members must fill out a confidential U.S. Office of Government Ethics financial disclosure. Filers are told to report positions in the conflict of interest section for the preceding 12 months.

No other timing is mentioned in the ACIP rules or charter.

The CDC did not respond when asked to confirm that it only considers potential conflicts within the previous year.

Lexchin said that three years is typically the period of time set by journal editors for conflicts of interest.

In the article from the just-ousted ACIP members, they reported conflicts of interest for the past 36 months.

Chen said in the article that she resigned from Valneva and stopped receiving fees from pharmaceutical companies before starting her ACIP term. Chu reported receiving fees, and Maldonado listed her trial work for Pfizer and AstraZeneca, with neither specifying that the money stopped coming in before their work on ACIP began.

Asturias and Brooks did not list any conflicts.

Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, fellow and director of the Ethics and Public Policy Center’s Bioethics and American Democracy Program, told The Epoch Times in an email that it’s a recurrent challenge for health agencies such as the CDC and the committees that advise them to avoid being captured by industries, and that one method of capture is through payments.

Kheriaty, who was previously fired from the University of California–Irvine School of Medicine for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, said that in addition to prohibiting ACIP members from taking money from pharmaceutical companies during their time on the committee, the members should be barred after serving for at least eight years from accepting payments from the industries with which they were involved.

“Such a policy would prevent not only current conflicts of interest but also mitigate the promise of ‘future reward’ from industry,” he said. “Disclosure of conflicts alone is insufficient; these conflicts must be eliminated entirely.”

Dr. George Kuchel, professor of geriatrics at the University of Connecticut’s Center on Aging, another ousted ACIP member, abstained this year from voting on respiratory syncytial virus vaccines.

“I have no conflicts of interest,” he said at the meeting. “However, I will abstain … because I consulted for six months about a decade ago.”

The Department of Health and Human Services declined to provide the confidential disclosures filled out for the government by the former panelists or the conflict-of-interest waivers issued for the members in 2024 and 2025. The CDC in 2023 rejected a Freedom of Information Act request from The Epoch Times for the information, saying the documents were “exempted from release by statute.”

Full Sweep

In their article this week, the former members decried their removals, describing the move and the narrowing of COVID-19 vaccine recommendations as lacking clear rationale and destabilizing efforts to vaccinate more people in the United States.

They also said that the ousters and the appointment of eight new members, along with reorganization of CDC employees working on immunizations, “have left the U.S. vaccine program critically weakened.”

“I’d argue the opposite: what has weakened trust is decades of stacking advisory committees with individuals, whether financially conflicted or intellectually entrenched, while sidelining those who ask hard, necessary questions,” Kim Witczak, who has served on federal advisory committees as a consumer representative, told The Epoch Times in an email.

Kennedy has said that he removed the members because of a history of issues, including conflicts of interest.

He pointed to how a House of Representatives committee in 2000 found conflicts of interest among members of ACIP and the panel that advises the Food and Drug Administration on vaccines, including that some owned stock in the companies that make vaccines, and a 2009 inspector general report that concluded that 64 percent of members of one of the CDC’s advisory committees had potential conflicts of interest that were not identified or resolved.

“Today we are prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda,” Kennedy said in a statement. “The public must know that unbiased science—evaluated through a transparent process and insulated from conflicts of interest—guides the recommendations of our health agencies.”

He later wrote on the social media platform X that for the past 20 years, “individual panelists regularly voted to recommend new vaccines owned by companies with which they personally had obscene financial conflicts.”

Health officials have said they will be implementing new policies that recommend panelists recuse themselves from votes that would impact current or former clients.

Kennedy was responding to concerns raised about Dr. Robert Malone, a new ACIP member who was paid by plaintiffs suing Merck over its measles, mumps, rubella vaccine. In a report filed in 2018, Malone concluded that Merck misrepresented testing results.

Malone told The Epoch Times that he has not been involved in the case, which was dismissed in 2023, for years, and that he has received ethics training for the new position.

ACIP rules state that members, during their tenure, “do not serve as a paid litigation consultant or expert witness in litigation involving a vaccine manufacturer.”

A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that ethics agreements for the new members will be released before they start work on ACIP. The panel is slated to meet for three days beginning on June 25.

Martin Kulldorff, another new member, prepared a separate report against Merck in a different case that was also dismissed. Additionally, he is listed as an expert witness in a third case that is set to go to trial later this year. Kulldorff has not responded to requests for comment.

With tensions between Trump and Powell running at Israel-Iran levels, moments ago Fed Governor Christopher Waller put in a bid to become the next Fed (shadow) chair, and said the central bank can lower interest rates as soon as next month.

“We could do this as early as July,” Waller said in an interview with Steve Liesman. The next FOMC meeting is July 29-30, so if (next Fed chair) Waller had his way, Powell would be cutting in just over a month. 

Waller said the FOMC should move slowly but start to ease as inflation is now longer a major economic threat. “I think we’re in the position that we could do this and as early as July”, Waller said in an interview with Steve Liesman. “That would be my view, whether the committee would go along with it or no”.

“I think we’ve got room to bring it down, and then we can kind of see what happens with inflation,” he said, adding the central bank could pause cuts if needed. And of course, let’s not forget that the Fed did cut 50bps two months before the election, when inflation was not only much higher than it is today, but when the US economy was just as weak as it is now.

Some more “facts”: the last time US data was this weak the Fed cut 50bps https://t.co/JkpqnlhFm3 pic.twitter.com/7GJOqr93RC

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 18, 2025

Waller’s comments followed the decision by Fed policymakers on Wednesday to keep interest rates on hold. where the number of officials who saw rates unchanged in 2025 rose from 4 in March to 7, pointing to an apparent split in the committee.

Officials also continued to signal their expectation for two rate cuts before the end of 2025, according to their median projection.

Some more comments from Waller:

• *WALLER: DON’T WANT TO WAIT FOR CUTS UNTIL JOB MARKET TANKS
• *WALLER: JUST DON’T SEE SECOND-ROUND TARIFF INFLATION EFFECTS
• *WALLER: NOT ALL OF TARIFFS WILL BE PASSED THROUGH TO INFLATION
• *WALLER: MIGHT SEE INFLATION RISE THREE-TENTHS OR HALF PERCENT

Translation: “Mr President, I am happy to step in as shadow Fed chair until the stupid numbskull guy is out.”

Remarkably, Waller isn’t even among the list of candidates considered by Polymarket as next Fed chair.

He should be.

Authored by Zachary Kelman via CoinTelegraph.com,

In 2021, Crypto-America was in the doldrums. Senator Elizabeth Warren and her loyal SEC enforcer, Gary Gensler, unleashed a blitzkrieg against crypto, bombarding platforms with lawsuits and pushing legislation so heavy-handed that many feared it would cripple America’s burgeoning crypto industry.

The pièce de résistance of regulatory absurdity arrived as a poison pill in the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) — the notorious “DeFi Broker Rule.” Under this provision, protocols and node operators were given the Kafkaesque requirement of collecting the names and addresses of every wallet holder on their blockchains. 

Senate debates openly acknowledge the impossibility of compliance, and it’s difficult to chalk the rule up to typical congressional technophobia or geriatric malaise. With Gensler’s quixotic crusade at full tilt, the American crypto community felt sucker-punched, with many looking abroad for refuge from what seemed less like incompetence and more like deliberate sabotage.

The GENIUS Act

The DeFi Broker Rule, like Gensler’s broader crusade, died on the vine earlier this year, even after its scope was belatedly narrowed to entities “capable” of identifying wallet holders in a last-ditch face-saving effort.

Its demise rendered moot the painstaking efforts node operators worldwide undoubtedly undertook, scrambling to collect the names and addresses of millions of wallet holders, instantly transforming the newly minted IRS Form 1099-DA into an accounting enthusiast’s collector’s item destined never to be filed.

Yet Warren and her fellow institutionalists marched onward, unfazed, eyes fixed firmly on their next target — the GENIUS Act.

Warren, the former banking law professor and senior member of the Senate Banking Committee responsible for drafting the act, deployed virtually every regulatory scare tactic imaginable to halt the bill through 72 separate amendments.

One failed effort stood out with particular menace, eerily echoing the logic of the DeFi Broker Rule. This amendment sought to saddle stablecoin issuers with the Sisyphean duty of monitoring and reporting every illicit transaction occurring downstream — forever.

On the surface, such a demand might appear merely complex, unlike the impossible demands of the original IIJA DeFi Broker Rule. But complexity isn’t the real issue here; absurdity is. Expecting banks to identify customers or flag suspicious activity is one thing. It’s quite another to burden currency issuers with permanent accountability for every future crime involving their tokens. Imagine holding the US Treasury responsible for tracking every drug deal paid for in cash.

Stablecoin showdown

Had Warren simply insisted, as the original Bank Secrecy Act does, that stablecoin issuers identify third parties receiving initial blocks of stablecoins rather than policing all future use, her proposal might have been palatable to the bipartisan Senate Banking Committee and included in the Genius Act.

Such a measured approach would have been easily achievable by dominant stablecoin issuers like Tether and Circle. Indeed, Tether was prominently named last week in a DOJ case celebrated by Warren, involving Russian nationals using the stablecoin to evade sanctions — a development highlighted by outlets like The Wall Street Journal as bolstering Warren’s position.

While Warren correctly noted that sanctions enforcement through traditional banking and international wire monitoring is stronger than through stablecoins, her position overlooked the inevitability of technological change. Fellow Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand recognized this reality and rejected Warren’s amendments, instead prioritizing the dollar hegemony promoted by the GENIUS Act. Gillibrand notably argued that the crypto ecosystem should have run on dollar-denominated stablecoins rather than yuan or renminbi.

Who stood to gain the most from Warren’s overreach? Big banks like Bank of America, which recently announced its own stablecoin, following JPMorgan’s lukewarm JPM Coin and Citigroup’s internal 2015 “CitiCoin” experiment. Armed with legions of compliance lawyers, these lumbering financial giants thrive precisely when smaller, agile crypto-native competitors suffocate under regulatory overhead. Despite casting herself as David battling banking Goliaths, Warren often ends up arming them with regulatory weapons or convenient talking points, particularly regarding crypto.

Warren’s efforts weren’t entirely in vain, as she partially succeeded with an amendment to mitigate executive branch corruption risks associated with stablecoins. She specifically spotlighted a $2 billion USD1 stablecoin deal struck in Abu Dhabi, in which Emirati-backed MGX used a Trump family-associated stablecoin to invest in Binance.

Although other senators prevented Warren’s amendment from explicitly including the president and vice president, arguing existing ethics laws already covered them, Warren’s linkage of President Donald Trump’s acceptance of a $400 million Boeing 747 from Qatar to the MGX transaction telegraphs future campaign narratives, lawfare or congressional investigations if Democrats regain power.

The American crypto community should note that Warren’s heavy-handed regulations aren’t random technophobic acts; they’re deliberate institutional maneuvers aimed at controlling the narrative and preserving power. Instead of killing the stablecoin bill, the institutionalists exposed their hand and inadvertently cleared the bases for crypto’s next big inning.