69 F
Chicago
Tuesday, August 18, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 146

Democrat-Led States Sue Trump Administration Over Medicaid Work Requirement Rules

survivalnomics
-
0
Democrat-Led States Sue Trump Administration Over Medicaid Work Requirement Rules

Via American Greatness,

A coalition of 25 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration’s rules implementing new Medicaid work requirements. The suit claims the work regulations unlawfully restrict exemptions for medically vulnerable recipients.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks to overturn the administration’s rule governing eligibility exemptions tied to the work requirements.

The states contend the rule conflicts with congressional intent by making it more difficult for individuals with illnesses to qualify for exemptions.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration’s policy will “cause immediate and irreparable harm” to state Medicaid programs.

The lawsuit argues the rule “will further strain safety net providers, lead to more uncompensated emergency care, and raise other costs associated with newly uninsured, medically frail residents.

And it will cause rural hospitals to be even more likely to shutter.”

The legal challenge was brought by 23 Democratic attorneys general along with the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, both of which have Republican attorneys general.

The states also allege the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) violated administrative procedure laws by adopting a rule that differs significantly from earlier guidance provided to states on implementing the work requirements.

The Trump administration has defended Medicaid work requirements as part of an effort to ensure public assistance programs are directed toward eligible recipients while encouraging workforce participation.

Under the policy, Medicaid beneficiaries must complete at least 80 hours of work or other approved activities each month to maintain coverage no later than Jan. 1.

States must begin notifying Medicaid recipients by Aug. 31 about how they can comply with the new requirements.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 11:05

AeroVironment Erupts On “Asymmetric Warfare Boom”

survivalnomics
-
0
AeroVironment Erupts On “Asymmetric Warfare Boom”

AeroVironment shares surged the most in nearly two decades in early trading after the defense contractor – best known for its loitering munitions and unmanned systems – reported stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter results and issued fiscal 2027 revenue guidance that topped Wall Street estimates tracked by Bloomberg.

AeroVironment’s fiscal fourth-quarter revenue jumped 31% to $642 million, well ahead of the Bloomberg Consensus estimate of $556.4 million, driven mostly by its autonomous systems unit and soaring demand for Switchblade, Red Dragon, and Titan.

Switchblade

Adjusted EBITDA of $140.1 million and adjusted earnings of $1.84 per share also beat expectations. Initial fiscal 2027 guidance was broadly in line, with revenue projected at $2.125 billion to $2.225 billion, implying about 10% organic growth.

A quick look at AeroVironment’s fourth-quarter earnings, courtesy of Bloomberg:

  • Revenue $641.6 million vs. $275.1 million y/y, estimate $556.4 million
  • Adjusted EPS $1.84 vs. $1.61 y/y, estimate $1.41
  • Income from operations $56.9 million vs. $13.8 million y/y, estimate $39.4 million
  • Adjusted Ebitda $140.1 million vs. $61.6 million y/y, estimate $126.1 million
  • Gross profit $202.6 million vs. $100.3 million y/y, estimate $175.6 million

… and 2027 year forecast:

  • Sees revenue $2.13 billion to $2.23 billion, estimate $2.16 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)
  • Sees adjusted EPS $3.02 to $3.34, estimate $3.79
  • Sees adjusted Ebitda $305 million to $325 million, estimate $346.2 million

Stifel analysts noted AeroVironment’s strength in the drone and counter-drone space:  

AeroVironment is a leader in several key areas in new defense, namely loitering munitions (Switchblade family of drones) that we believe will be critical as the entire industry undergoes a transformation.

The company’s merger with BlueHalo provides exposure in space, counterdrone, and missiles, all of which are priorities for the DoD.

We anticipate a steep ramp in organic EBITDA in the legacy AVAV portfolio and BlueHalo.

Our Buy rating reflects AeroVironment’s positioning as a pure-play new defense tech company with rapidly growing sales and earnings driving increased investor enthusiasm and multiple expansion.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Will Lee noted:

AeroVironment’s fiscal 2027 sales targets seem achievable, fueled by expectations of robust demand across its loitering munition, drone and counter-drone, or C-UAS, portfolio. Still, sales are skewed toward 2H, and US budget delays might push them further out into 2028.

KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Michael Leshock noted:

AeroVironment is positioned to capitalize on the proliferation of UAS/cUAS and increased government spending in defense and space-related programs. Should geopolitical tensions intensify, AVAV is positioned among the top beneficiaries.

In early trading, AeroVironment shares were up nearly 31%, which would mark the stock’s largest one-day gain on record if the move holds into the cash session. Year to date, shares are down 42.5% as of Monday’s close. Short interest remains elevated, with about 13% of the float sold short, equivalent to roughly 4.8 million shares.

Perfect timing on AeroVironment. We recently laid out for readers how to capitalize on the accelerating “asymmetric warfare boom,” a theme that appears poised to gain momentum in the quarters ahead. Read the full note here.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 10:55

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

survivalnomics
-
0
Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order curbing birthright citizenship. 

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 – Trump’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present – violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority’s constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute – leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

Background

Birthright citizenship – the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen – has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

The Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

The Modern Challenges

In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile – essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates “anchor babies,” encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.

On January 20, 2025 – his first day in office for his second term – President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:

  • The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
  • The mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.

The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment’s original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.” In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.

Today’s SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is “Barbara,” a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order – emphasizing historical sources, the role of “domicile” in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs’ counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and whether the government’s proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment’s text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration’s position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court’s term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 10:40

Today Will Or Won’t See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be “Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not”

survivalnomics
-
0
Today Will Or Won’t See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be “Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not”

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Build ’em up or Burnham down?

In typical form, today will or won’t see a US-Iran meeting in Doha; which will be ‘perhaps important, perhaps not’; and either discussing the MoU or unfreezing $6bn of Iranian assets. So, the ‘peacefire’ continues, as expected, but with little chance this holds permanently. Likewise in Lebanon, where the US is pushing to disarm Hezbollah –which refuses– and Israel won’t leave until that happens. And Gaza, where the Board of Peace is finalising its plans as the IDF warns Hamas is readying for war. And Iraq, which just set a September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm. And Libya, where Marco Rubio is fighting another crisis. To give an early Christmas present to Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Israel also says it’s developing space lasers.

That’s as South Korea announced a $1.3 trillion AI and IT investment plan to maintain an edge vs. China over the next decade – which is showing footage of a 6G fighter jet and conducting tests of a hypersonic ramjet that can change shape in flight; China has restricted dual use exports to Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Komatsu units; Supermicro’s Taiwan offices were raided in a chip smuggling probe; and a Rakuten-led group is set for state subsidies to build Japan’s answer to Starlink. In short, what we see around us is as about massive, urgent investment in defence and AI as much it is about related energy (i.e., Hormuz), broader commodities, and supply chains.

That’s unbelievably expensive to address. For example, the US is pushing for a $1.5 trillion defence budget, while keeping up with South Korea alone would require Europe to invest $14 trillion to match it equivalently. Tellingly, the UK will today unveil its new defence strategy, which shifts to cheap drones from larger platforms –guided missile destroyers and frigates are cut– as outgoing PM Starmer presides over a plan that will only reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, not the promised 3.0%; some say he wants to run NATO next (to tell his successor he must reach 3.5%).

So, we may soon require:

  • Creative book-keeping: Hungary’s new PM claims his predecessor hid half of the budget deficit, which is actually 8% of GDP.
  • Spending cuts: and good luck with that.
  • New taxes: France is now looking for EU-wide taxes to fund a planned €2 trillion commission budget, with the idea that foreign firms, like US tech and polluters, could pay more.
  • Tariffs: last week, US Treasury Secretary Bessent cited Hamiltonian economic statecraft; yesterday, White House macro-maven Miran penned a WSJ op-ed arguing for US tariffs. The EU just gave China an October deadline to address their huge –and predictable– trade imbalance, kicking the can down the road, but pointing to a trade war and/or Hamilton (and Trump) moment ahead, which could prove transformative. Even Paul Krugman is telling the EU to tariff China.
  • Industrial policy: which is very much back in vogue, even if what this means is vague for many.
  • A compliant central bank: There, the Supreme Court just overturned precedent to allow the White House to remove heads of federal agencies, greatly empowering the executive. It kept FOMC member Cook in her seat for now until due process plays out but did not address whether “for cause” removals at the Fed are also constitutional or not, allowing Trump to restart the process of trying to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud and, in time, to potentially relitigate if the Fed is a special case or not.

The ECB’s Lagarde, who years ago said the Bank should work hand-in-hand with governments to overcome geopolitical crises, just stated Europe is getting better at coping with economic shocks due to a better financial framework and the green transition. European refineries’ flexibility on jet fuel helped; but China did more by not importing as much oil, and the US and Japan by draining their SPRs, all due to *their* economic statecraft. Now the risk is rising of a China cut-off of rare earths to Europe, which account for half its total (and Russia a quarter), and of more expensive Chinese imports across the board. What if that transpires from October onwards – and if we get more war vs. Iran after the US midterms?

In the UK, the question is ‘Build ‘em up or Burnham down?’ as the soon-to-be UK PM just called to “rewire” the UK economy. He’s talking about devolution – which hasn’t boosted growth in Scotland; equalisation across regions – which most countries want but fail to achieve; (expensive?) public control of utilities; and reindustrialisation – in a period of protectionism and bloc-based realignment. In short, is the UK going to tariff everybody, or the US, or Europe, or China? Logically, one should start from there, not locally, only to then hit a low tariff ceiling on the attempted way back up.

In short, political economy remains in flux. Markets don’t think things through in such detail or depth: whatever happens is an input into the ‘up or down from here’ binary. However, the scale on which things can move up or down based on how political-economy transforms shouldn’t be understated. JPY is at a 40-year low vs. the dollar at time of writing: where will other crosses go as things unfold?

Yet even as politicians –and central bankers– try to relearn things from first principles, revolutionary change can reshape the architecture which they think they are operating in. For example, regular readers may recall that years ago I floated the idea of letters of marque as a way to channel private sector energies and capital into national security without busting budgets or political constraints like no boots on the ground. On that note, see the following proposal taken from X and think about it seriously:

“A durable solution to the Iran problem is pretty easy:

  1. Form the American Persian Energy Company (APEC)
  2. Give 25% to Exxon and Chevron, who will capitalize it and provide expertise
  3. Ground invasion of Iran, but only with volunteer troops who will be compensated with APEC stock
  4. US military provides air cover and logistical support
  5. Defecting Iranian generals will also be compensated with a quantity of APEC stock dependent on their rank and the number of soldiers they bring with them
  6. All oil and gas rights in Iran are granted to the APEC
  7. New $2 trillion American company is created out of thin air
  8. Iran temporarily governed by APEC CEO while a transition to a suitable civilian government is negotiated”

If you think this kind of thing doesn’t happen (anymore: it used to) then you haven’t noticed how 18th and 19th century thinking is not just back in vogue but is actively winning vs. the post-Cold War political establishment consensus; or how modern mercenaries like Blackwater operate.

Political economy is changing; it will change much, much more; and markets will change with it. The volatility we are seeing in the Hormuz ‘peacefire’ is just a taste of what’s to come. Some assets will be built up. Others will be burned down.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 10:00

“Right Above The Cockpit”: Drone Strikes JetBlue Plane On Final Approach To JFK

survivalnomics
-
0
“Right Above The Cockpit”: Drone Strikes JetBlue Plane On Final Approach To JFK

JetBlue Airways Flight 948 reportedly struck a small drone while the narrow-body aircraft was in the traffic pattern on final approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City.

A JetBlue pilot could be heard talking with Kennedy Tower about the drone strike. The pilot said the jet collided with a drone during a turn about two miles before landing. When the controller asked for confirmation, the pilot said the object struck “right above the cockpit.”

“Just quickly, I couldn’t talk to approach, but we collided with a drone back there in the turn,” the pilot said.

“You said you collided?” the air traffic controller asked.

“Yep, it hit us right, right above the cockpit,” the pilot said.

The FAA released a statement shortly after the mid-air incident:

The pilot of JetBlue Airlines Flight 948 reported striking a drone at approximately 3,000 feet altitude while on final approach to John F. Kennedy International Airport around 7:15 a.m. local time on Monday, June 29. A post-flight inspection did not reveal any damage to the aircraft. The FAA will investigate. Contact the airline for more information.

The incident is yet another warning that even some of the most heavily monitored and defended airspace in the country remains highly exposed to small, low-cost drones. It also underscores the urgent need for counter-UAS deployments at major airports and other critical infrastructure nodes, including power grids and data centers, before a devastating drone attack becomes a national story across every front page.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 09:45

US-Iran Have Delegations In Qatar, But No Direct Talks; Hormuz Energy Transit Rebounds – Oil Down Near Prewar Levels

survivalnomics
-
0
US-Iran Have Delegations In Qatar, But No Direct Talks; Hormuz Energy Transit Rebounds – Oil Down Near Prewar Levels

The Witkoff-Kushner delegation is now confirmed to be in Doha, and yet in its latest official statement Iran’s foreign ministry has made clear the Iranian side has no plans to meet US officials “at any level in the next few days.“

“What will probably be done in Doha tomorrow is a discussion on the implementation of clauses of the Memorandum of Understanding, including the clause related to the release of Iran’s restricted assets with the Qatari parties,” spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei says. “Therefore, I emphasize that we have not planned any meeting with the American side at any level for the next few days,” Baghaei added.

Tehran is expecting that $6 billion of Iranian frozen funds in Qatar will be transferred back by week’s end, but Qatar’s foreign ministry indicated Tuesday this had yet to happen. Up for discussion among mediators currently in Qatar is precisely the fate of Iran’s frozen funds, and implementing agreed-upon transfers. However, Washington has for days accused Iran’s military of violating the ceasefire and its commitments under the MoU – a charge that Tehran has fired back in turn.

via AFP

On Monday President Trump had claimed that Iran “requested a meeting” following the exchange of strikes last week, but no such meeting appears to be materializing – at least not a direct one in Doha. But according to the latest from Al Jazeera Tuesday:

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesman also said that US envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are in the country’s capital, Doha, despite having no meetings with Iranian officials scheduled.

Iran remains defiant, insisting that it will not concede anything – especially regards to its control over the Strait of Hormuz, vowing it’s ready to return to armed conflict if things can’t be resolved at the negotiating table.

Tehran is asserting its ‘right’ to manage the strait under its own protocol, and while Oman’s cooperation has been sought, Iranian officials have said they will proceed with or without Oman’s help and that this will include tolls, towards partically funding the reconstruction of Iran.

Part of this entrenched position is Iran wants its frozen assets before peace talks, while the US said is saying it must demonstrate it is worthy first. Fox has cited Baghaei, who “told reports that clauses in Tehran’s interim deal with the U.S. must be implemented before talks on a final agreement can begin.”

“Baghaei also said the communication channel between Iran and the U.S. is based on political factions, not military ones,” the report said.

Still, despite the apparently unbending positions of the warring sides, oil is responding favorably, as the Trump administration no doubt wants to be on message going into the July 4th holiday:

Oil prices were on track Tuesday for their steepest quarterly decline since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, as investors watched for potential U.S.-Iran talks in Doha amid a strained interim ceasefire in the 4-month-old war.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) was headed for a second monthly decline of roughly 19%, while Brent crude was on pace for a third consecutive monthly drop, down about 20% in June.

Both Brent and WTI have fallen sharply this quarter and are trading near pre-war levels as more ships move out of the Gulf, easing some supply concerns.

This is also amid a rebound in shipping traffic to kick off this week, after tit-for-tat weekend attacks:

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz rebounded Tuesday morning, with eight crossings so far after 40 vessels moved through the critical waterway Monday, according to Kpler data.

The rebound comes after some days of declining traffic following attacks on commercial vessels in the region due to renewed strikes between the U.S. and Iran late last week. Crossings fell from 76 on Wednesday, June 24, to 59 on Thursday, when the Ever Lovely was attacked.

Traffic then dropped to 50 crossings Friday, 39 on Saturday, when the Kiku was attacked, and just 24 on Sunday before recovering to 40 on Monday.

Of Monday’s 40 crossings, 10 vessels used the southern Omani route, which the U.S. Navy is helping coordinate. Thirty-two of the 40 vessels were large tankers and bulk carriers.

In fresh comments on the status of energy transit in the Strait of Hormuz, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said in a fresh media interview reported in Bloomberg that only China has bought Iranian oil since the US lifted sanctions.

Strong signaling out of Israeli defense establishment, following Monday remarks by Katz…

“Iranians thus far have not been able to sell their oil, because the buyers are a little weary of, will it be resanctioned?” Bessent posed on Fox, noting that it’s still trading at a discount to China.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 09:30

Obamacare Enrollment Drops By 3 Million; Experts Disagree On Cause

survivalnomics
-
0
Obamacare Enrollment Drops By 3 Million; Experts Disagree On Cause

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Obamacare enrollment declined by nearly 3 million in 2026, sparking renewed debate about the affordability of healthcare in America.

National politicians and policy experts disagreed on the reasons for the dip in enrollment, with some saying that it was driven by rising premiums. 

Others said the decline was evidence that program integrity measures taken by the Trump administration were successful in rooting out fraud and waste. 

The program grew significantly during the declared National Health Emergency from 2021 through 2024, when eligibility verification requirements were relaxed and participants were automatically reenrolled.

Enrollment peaked at 22.1 million last year and dropped to 19.2 million as of February, according to federal data released June 26.

Though that’s still higher than in any year except 2025, some analysts interpreted the decline as a massive loss of coverage resulting from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.

“One year later, the Trump administration’s policies are bleeding the revenue of the American tax system and have left millions of Americans without health coverage and food assistance,” Amina Khalique and Natasha Murphy wrote in a June 25 article for Center for American Progress, writing on the anniversary of the bill’s passage.

Others including Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, say that the changes mostly reverted to pre-pandemic coverage and policy rules, which had been an incentive for fraud. 

“Excessive subsidies and zero-premium plans created unusually strong incentives for improper enrollment, while weak verification systems, permissive enrollment pathways, and insufficient oversight allowed those incentives to be exploited at scale,” Blase wrote in a June analysis.

The Trump Administration has focused on program integrity, preventing about 2.9 million enrollees from receiving Obamacare subsidies that they didn’t qualify for, according to a statement from the assistant secretary for Health and Human Services.

The government estimates that 2.6 million fraudulent enrollments remain in the program, down from an estimated high of 5.6 million last year.

Either way, the changes left millions uninsured, according to some experts. 

About 9 percent of 2025 Obamacare enrollees became uninsured as of March, according to a survey conducted by health research group KFF.

“While the Trump administration attributes this drop in enrollment to their attempts to address fraud, this coverage loss happened at the same time millions of people faced steep increases in their premium payments,” Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president at KFF, wrote on social media on June 29.

“Real people lost their health insurance or are now paying more,” Cox said.

The average monthly premium for 2026 is $178, compared to $113 in 2025, according to KFF. However, the 2026 premium is lower than the 2021 premium after adjusting for inflation.

The benchmark silver premium, which is used to set subsidy rates, increased by about 25 percent in 2026, according to KFF.

Democrats seized on the enrollment data to criticize President Donald Trump and Republicans over healthcare affordability. 

“Trump and congressional Republicans let healthcare premiums explode and now millions of Americans can’t afford coverage,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) wrote on social media on June 29.

“That’s not right,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, responding to the argument that premium increases have forced people off of the program. 

“The reality is we have a lot of fake people on the policies,” Oz told Fox News on June 29. 

Oz cited that 40 percent of enrollees never use the policies as proof that many either do not want the coverage, do not realize they have it, or were fraudulently enrolled.

Prior to the introduction of the enhanced subsidies in 2021, Obamacare enrollment had declined for four years.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 09:15

US Home Prices Drop For 3rd Straight Month

survivalnomics
-
0
US Home Prices Drop For 3rd Straight Month

Home prices in America’s top 20 cities were expected to fall MoM for the 3rd straight month in April (the latest reported data from S&P Cotality Case-Shiller) and they did… but only marginally.

Prices fell 0.04% MoM in April (less than the 0.10% decline expected), but the annual change rose modestly from +0.88% YoY to +1.14% YoY…

Source: Bloomberg

“Monthly price movements show seasonal strength masking underlying softness,” said Nicholas Godec, CFA, CAIA, CIPM, Head of Fixed Income Tradables & Commodities at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

The oddly tight coupling with Fed Reserves suggests the path is lower…

“Geographic dispersion remains pronounced,” Godec continued.

“Midwest and Northeast markets are still leading moderate growth, while many Sun Belt and Western metros see ongoing declines.

Chicago was again the strongest market with a 6.5% annual gain, trailed by New York (3.8%) and Cleveland (3.2%).

Seattle’s 2.3% year-over-year drop was the steepest in April, with Denver (-1.8%), Tampa (-1.8%), Dallas (-1.6%), and Phoenix (-1.7%) also among the notable decliners.

The nearly 9 percent performance spread between Chicago and Seattle highlights how localized housing trends remain.

On a YoY basis, Chicago reported the highest annual gain among the 20 cities with a 6.5% increase in April, followed by New York and Cleveland with annual increases of 3.8% and 3.2%, respectively.

Seattle posted the lowest return in April, falling 2.3%.

The chart below compares year-over-year returns for different housing price ranges (tiers) in Chicago.

“The affordability pinch remains a key headwind,” Godec concluded.

“After dipping below 6% earlier this year, 30-year mortgage rates climbed back to 6.3% in April, keeping financing costs elevated. In this higher-rate environment, home price growth remains constrained, with housing largely treading water in nominal terms and falling in real terms.”

Finally, with inflation accelerating to 3.8% in April, U.S. home values have now declined in real terms for an 11th straight month, further eroding inflation-adjusted housing wealth.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 09:09

Maersk Lifts Outlook As Wall Street Questions Whether Freight Tailwinds Can Last

survivalnomics
-
0
Maersk Lifts Outlook As Wall Street Questions Whether Freight Tailwinds Can Last

A.P. Moller-Maersk shares rose in Copenhagen trading after the world’s second-largest container carrier surprised analysts by raising its full-year profit outlook, citing stronger-than-expected containerized demand, particularly across Asia. The upbeat guidance suggests the global container market has remained resilient despite earlier Hormuz-related chokepoint disruptions, with global shipping demand holding.

The Danish shipping and logistics giant now expects global container volumes to grow about 4% this year, up from its prior forecast of 2% to 4%. It also lifted guidance for EBITDA, EBIT, and free cash flow, with the new ranges coming in well above analyst expectations, as tracked by Bloomberg.

Here’s a snapshot of the full-year guidance upgrade (courtesy of Bloomberg):

  • Sees underlying Ebitda $8 billion to $10 billion, saw $4.5 billion to $7 billion, estimate $7.33 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)
  • Sees underlying Ebit $2 billion to $4 billion, saw loss $1.5 billion to $1 billion, estimate $1.42 billion

Maersk’s guidance matters because container shipping offers one of the clearest real-time reads on global demand for goods.

The stronger outlook reflects a recent surge in spot freight rates, resilient export volumes in Asian markets, and tighter effective capacity due to ongoing route disruptions. The key question for investors now is whether that momentum is strong enough to push Maersk shares back toward, or through, their 2021 highs.

Wolfe Research analyst Jacob Lacks noted:

Maersk is clearly benefitting from the recent surge in spot rates, and a key question in our minds for the stock is how long the current environment lasts. We continue to believe the recent tightness reflects at least some degree of a pull-forward and an early peak season. This is consistent with ocean freight futures which continue to show a meaningful normalization lower in ocean rates following July.

Deutsche Bank analyst Harishankar Ramamoorthy noted:

..but difficult to see rates momentum sustain over the medium-term.

We have revised our forecasts for 2026 to reflect the guidance above, but make little changes to estimates beyond 2026 (see Figure 2). Freight rates have been volatile in the past several months, given many “black swan” events, and it is difficult to argue that the current momentum in spot rates should continue structurally into the medium term. Nevertheless, as we noted in our monthly Transportation Leading Indicators note yesterday, markets are pricing in an easing in freight rates for Maersk driven by the peace deal in the Middle East (latest SCFI is still c. 140% higher than in end Feb); but they seem to be ignoring that bunker 380 has dropped c. 37% from its peak in March, now trading only 7% higher than at the end of Feb.

We have been arguing that the direction of travel for spot freight rates relative to bunker costs has been favourable for Maersk (see Figure 1), and it is indeed providing some near-term tail risk. Given the swing in EBITDA, FCF, and consequently net debt, while we haven’t changed our valuation methodology or the multiples used, our price target stands revised from DKK 12,970 to DKK 14,030. Despite the near-term tailwinds to spot rates, the situation on overcapacity in the industry warrants caution over the medium term; retain HOLD.

Bernstein analyst Alex Irving noted:

This increase follows strong demand leading to strong freight rates. We see the increase in spot rates YTD as having two components. The initial rise in spot rates following the outbreak of war in the Middle East was likely largely, if not entirely, due to additional surcharges for higher fuel costs. However, rates continued to rise even as fuel prices started to decline as Q2 went on, reflecting strength in demand. What is not yet clear to us is how much is a pull-forward of demand, ahead of further surcharges and the risk of higher tariffs in Q3, vs genuinely greater demand. Maersk has increased its volume outlook for total container trade for the year from a range of 2-4% growth, to 4% growth. By implication, the answer is some of both.

The underlying threat to industry profitability of oversupply has not gone away, and in recent days we have seen reports of further mega orders (MSC just yesterday reported to be ordering up to 20 vessels of 20,000 TEU each, for delivery from 2029). Near term, the rate environment continues to support very strong earnings at container lines.

Last week, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc told Bloomberg: “It has been strong throughout the first half of the year, despite the war and the disruption to energy markets,” adding, “For us, the expectation is that this in all likelihood, right now looks like it’s set to continue into the rest of the

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 07:45

Can We Have Our Humans Back? Companies Rethink AI

survivalnomics
-
0
Can We Have Our Humans Back? Companies Rethink AI

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

The artificial intelligence revolution may not be eliminating human jobs as quickly as some feared. Rising computing costs, operational headaches, and inconsistent results are prompting some companies to change course and bring workers back.

It’s a hard lesson learned in the throes of the early AI boom, in which bold claims of big savings have enticed many businesses to downsize their staff.

Many industry professionals now say that roles requiring sound judgment, creativity, customer interaction, and quality control need to keep humans in the driver’s seat.

A Careerminds survey of 600 human resources professionals who’d made layoffs in the previous 12 months revealed that nine out of 10 companies would rethink their AI-related terminations.

Three out of four human resources professionals who took the survey confirmed that their organization sacked employees because of technological advancements that replaced roles and responsibilities.

But only 8.4 percent of the survey pool said AI delivered the promised results.

“Over the past 12 months, we have seen a noticeable uptick in companies coming to us after pausing or scaling back AI tool rollouts,” James Calloway, chief operating officer at Stealth Agents, told The Epoch Times.

Calloway’s company provides executive-level virtual assistants, an area where the cost difference between human workers and AI agents is stark.

“One e-commerce client had budgeted for an AI customer service implementation and found the licensing, integration, and ongoing prompt engineering costs were two to three times their original estimate,” he said.

“They hired two of our [human virtual assistants] instead and cut their per-ticket resolution cost by nearly 40 [percent].

“Human employees remain more cost-effective in client-facing communications that require empathy and judgment, tasks that require reading between the lines of what a customer actually needs, work involving proprietary context that cannot safely be fed into third-party AI systems, and any workflow where a mistake has real reputational or legal consequences.”

Big tech companies have also found this to be true. In April, Bryan Catanzaro, vice president of applied deep learning research at Nvidia, told Axios, “For my team, the cost of compute is far beyond the costs of the employees.”

Nickle LaMoreaux, senior vice president and chief human resources officer at IBM, argued that augmenting roles with AI is more essential to corporate growth than replacing human talent entirely, during a Wall Street Journal Leadership Institute summit in March.

LaMoreaux’s comments followed just weeks after IBM announced plans to triple its entry-level hires. When asked why so many companies aren’t taking a similar approach, he said, “It’s because they’re in this productivity mindset versus the growth mindset.”

A BCG analysis predicted that 50 percent to 55 percent of all jobs in the United States will be “reshaped” by AI within the next couple of years.

Visitors crowd an IBM exhibition stand at the 2026 Hannover Messe industrial trade fair in Hanover, Germany, on April 20, 2026. This year’s trade fair included an increased emphasis on industrial AI. Sean Gallup/Getty Images

Unforeseen Expenses

Jon Hill, CEO of The Energists, said there’s a misconception that generative AI is just “software with a subscription fee.” He has personally witnessed how AI buyer’s remorse can lead to staff rehires.

“Many of our clients aggressively pursued generative AI initiatives, thinking they would reduce labor costs,” Hill told The Epoch Times, “but we’re increasingly seeing those clients circling back to human employees after discovering the real-world costs of AI systems.”

Hill gave the example of one company that he worked with that planned to automate some of its compliance reporting and technical support. The company found that while the projected savings initially looked promising, those gains evaporated when taking into account the costs of cybersecurity, human oversight, and application programming interface usage.

The client chose to pause AI deployment because “human staff provided more predictable output at a lower long-term cost,” he said.

Hill said there are multiple costs that organizations can overlook. Cloud compute costs alone can be “a six- to seven-figure annual expense,” depending on usage, Hill said.

People visit an AI data center at SK Networks during the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain, on March 3, 2025. A February survey of human resources professionals revealed that nine out of 10 companies would rethink AI-related terminations. Manaure Quinter/AFP via Getty Images

Matt Baharav, CEO of MKB Media Solutions, told The Epoch Times that the AI content assistant his team implemented ended up being both costly and inefficient.

“Last quarter, we decided to stop utilizing an [AI] automated content assistant for our outreach pitches. We realized the software was ineffective,” Baharav told The Epoch Times.

“The company we hired and paid thousands per month charged us licensing costs, as well as had my team spend countless hours rewriting generic paragraphs created by their tool.”

In this photo illustration, a screen shows the Deepseek app in Kyiv, Ukraine, on March 31, 2026. After the rapid rise of AI implementation in industrial settings, a growing number of businesses are bringing human workers back to the workplace. Oleksii Pydsosonnii/The Epoch Times

Baharav said he learned that “a good writer is less expensive than an expensive automated content assistant” when it comes to complex communications.

“We eliminated the software altogether and transferred the funds back into hiring competent, sharp writers,” he said.

Tech spending tracker Mavvrik, in its 2025 State of AI Cost Management report, observed that 80 percent to 85 percent of companies missed their AI infrastructure forecasts by more than 25 percent, while 84 percent reported “significant gross margin erosion” because of miscalculated AI costs.

The offices of Amazon Germany’s new headquarters in Munich are pictured on April 16, 2026. The retail giant laid off 16,000 workers in January in its latest round of cuts, part of a multi-year wave of layoffs driven in part by the company’s adoption of artificial intelligence. AFP via Getty Images

Luxury Component

Marcus Mossberger, chief market strategy officer at workforce intelligence platform LYTIQS, said he believes that AI could have its own niche within the workforce, so long as it’s not a situation that would be better served by human judgment.

“HR is a great example where AI can be used to field transaction questions like ‘what is the deductible on my health insurance plan,’ but not for more intimate requests, like ‘what should I do about a co-worker who is making me uncomfortable?’” Mossberger said.

He said some companies are likely to “over-rotate” toward AI and learn a hard lesson, but he thinks that there could be bigger consequences for companies than just having to hire new talent.

“I actually believe the biggest hidden ‘expense’ associated with implementing generative AI has been the disruption of trust between employee and employer. And let’s face it, this wasn’t exactly an area of strength to begin with,” Mossberger said.

A Microsoft AI booth is shown during the AI+Expo Special Competitive Studies Project in Washington on June 2, 2025. Many companies are feeling buyer’s remorse, hiring industry insiders say, as they find that the cost of AI implementation is higher than anticipated. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

He pointed out that hard-working Americans are watching employers invest billions in AI infrastructure while laying off their co-workers and being asked to help train their own AI replacement.

“If you think these same individuals are giving you discretionary effort and taking innovative risks to improve your organization, you are badly mistaken,” Mossberger said.

He predicts that this will necessitate a need for companies to rebuild trust in their brand while training new hires. Mossberger said he thinks that many of the people laid off during the early days of the AI gold rush may refuse to come back.

The practice of a worker returning to the same company that initially laid them off has come to be known as a “boomerang employee.”

For Baharav, the decision to prioritize human talent has definitely paid off. “To date, we have actually ended up saving money,” he said.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 07:20

1...145146147...4,361Page 146 of 4,361

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks