Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has overturned a lower court ruling that had prevented the Trump administration from restructuring the leadership at the Institute of Peace (USIP), according to a June 27 order.

The issue stems from a Feb. 19 executive order from President Donald Trump declaring USIP “unnecessary” and calling for its activities to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.”

USIP was set up by Congress as an independent nonprofit corporation, received federal and private funding, and was tasked with promoting peace via diplomacy and education. USIP’s board of directors is made up of 15 members, three of whom are “ex officio”—they hold their seats due to their positions in the federal government. The remaining 12 are appointed members of the board, designated by the president, and confirmed by the Senate.

On March 14, Trent Morse of the White House Presidential Personnel Office terminated all appointed members. The same day, the three ex officio members signed a resolution removing the board’s president.

On March 17, the Department of Government Efficiency took over USIP headquarters. The administration eventually fired most of the USIP staff and canceled all of its programs. Later, the General Services Administration took control of USIP headquarters.

The next day, USIP and several of its terminated board members sued the government over the firings.

On May 19, District Judge Beryl Howell blocked the federal administration from restructuring USIP, replacing the organization’s leadership, and assuming control of the agency’s office building.

Later that week, Howell rejected the administration’s request for a stay, upholding her decision. The matter then went to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

However, on June 27, the appeals court sided with the administration, lifting the district court judge’s blockade.

Plaintiffs in the case had argued their terminations were unlawful and that all federal government actions taken after their removal were invalid, according to the appeals court order.

Plaintiffs argued that USIP was a fully independent entity and not part of the government, or at least the executive branch, and that board members can only be removed by the president under limited circumstances, such as for felony or malfeasance in office.

The federal government argued that USIP was a part of the executive branch as it carried out diplomatic functions, thus entitling the president to fire its board members.

The appeals court ruled the president has the authority to remove executive officers “at will.” And since USIP exercises “substantial executive power,” the government is likely to succeed on its claims that protecting the board against removal by the president is unconstitutional, it said.

USIP has engaged in “extensive activities within the domain of the President’s foreign affairs powers,” the appeals court said.

For instance, USIP has taken part in peace deals involving Israel and the Palestinians and fielded requests from the Philippine government to facilitate a cease-fire with a rebel group, according to the court. The institute also “shapes foreign affairs in the interest of the United States through the exercise of soft power,” it said.

“The President’s inability to control the Institute’s exercise of these ‘significant executive power[s]’ undermines his ability to set and pursue his foreign policy objectives,” the court said, adding that the president is the “sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.”

“The President faces irreparable harm from not being able to fully exercise his executive powers,” the appeals court ruled. “That harm outweighs any harm the removed board members may face.”

Courts Backing Trump

In its order, the appeals court cited a ruling made by the U.S. Supreme Court last month in a similar case.

In the case, a district court had blocked the Trump administration from removing a member of the National Labor Relations Board and another member from the Merit Systems Protection Board, according to the May 22 ruling from the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs said the president was “prohibited by statute from removing these officers except for cause, and no qualifying cause was given,” it said.

However, the Supreme Court lifted the district court blockade, writing that “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the President, he may remove without cause executive officers who exercise that power on his behalf.”

Meanwhile, the Trump administration secured a critical legal victory on Friday after the Supreme Court issued a ruling restricting federal judges from imposing nationwide injunctions against the federal government’s executive policies.

Trump praised the decision in comments during a press conference at the White House.

“This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, separation of powers, and the rule of law,” he said.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The end is nigh.

That seems to be the message this week from the three liberal justices at the Supreme Court when faced with the nightmarish prospect of parents being able to remove their young children from mandatory classes on gay, lesbian and transgender material.

The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor was a roaring victory for parents in public schools. The Montgomery County, Md. school system fought to require the reading of 13 “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts in the English and Language Arts curriculum for kids from pre-K through 12th grade. That covers children just 5-11 years old.

The children are required to read or listen to stories like “Prince & Knight” about two male knights who marry each other, and “Love Violet” about two young girls falling in love. Another, “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” discusses a biological girl who begins a transition to being a boy.

Teachers were informed that this was mandatory reading, which must be assigned, and that families would not be allowed to opt out. The guidelines for teachers made clear that students had to be corrected if they expressed errant or opposing views of gender. If a child questions how someone born a boy could become a girl, teachers were encouraged to correct the child and declare, “That comment is hurtful!”

Even if a student merely asks, “What’s transgender?,” teachers are expected to say, “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.”

Teachers were specifically told to “[d]isrupt” thinking or values opposing transgender views.

Many families sought to opt out of these lessons. The school allows for such opt-outs for a variety of reasons, but the Board ruled out withdrawals for these lessons. Ironically, it noted that so many families were upset and objecting that it would be burdensome to allow so many kids to withdraw.

The Montgomery County school system is one of the most diverse in the nation. And Christian, Muslim, and other families objected to the mandatory program as undermining their religious and moral values.

The majority on the Supreme Court ruled that, as with other opt-outs, Montgomery County must allow parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The response from liberal groups was outrage. Liberal sites declared “another victory for right-wing culture warriors,” even though the public overwhelmingly supported these parents.

However, the most overwrought language came not from liberal advocates but liberal justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor declared that there “will be chaos for this nation’s public schools” and both education and children will “suffer” if parents are allowed to opt their children out of these lessons. She also worried about the “chilling effect” of the ruling, which would make schools more hesitant to offer such classes in the future. It was a particularly curious concern, since parents would like teachers to focus more on core subjects and show greater restraint in pursuing social agendas.

The majority pushed back against “the deliberately blinkered view” of the three liberal justices on dismissing the objections of so many families to these lessons. Nevertheless, even though such material was only recently added and made mandatory, the liberal justices declared that “the damage to America’s public education system will be profound” and “threatens the very essence of public education.”

The truth is that this decision could actually save public education in the U.S.

Previously, during oral argument, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shocked many when she dismissed the objections of parents, stating that they could simply remove their children from public schools. It was a callous response to many families who do not have the means to pay for private or parochial schools.

Yet, it is a view previously expressed by many Democratic politicians and school officials. State Rep. Lee Snodgrass (D-Wis.) once insisted: “If parents want to ‘have a say’ in their child’s education, they should homeschool or pay for private school tuition out of their family budget.”

Iowa school board member Rachel Wall said: “The purpose of a public ed is to not teach kids what the parents want. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client is not the parent, but the community.”

These parents still harbor the apparently misguided notion that these remain their children.

Today, many are indeed following Jackson’s advice and leaving public schools. The opposition of public-sector unions and many Democratic politicians to school vouchers is precisely because families are fleeing the failing public school systems. Once they are no longer captive to the system, they opt for private schools that offer a greater focus on basic educational subjects and less emphasis on social activism.

Our public schools are imploding. Some are lowering standards to achieve “equity” and graduating students without proficiency skills. Families are objecting to the priority given to political and social agendas to make their kids better people when they lack math, science, and other skills needed to compete in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

This decision may well save public schools from themselves by encouraging a return to core educational priorities.

It may offer some cover for more moderate school officials to push back against such demands for mandatory readings to young children.

What the majority calls “the deliberately blinkered view” of the dissent could just as well describe the delusional position of public school boards and unions. Schools are facing rising debt and severe declines in enrollment, yet unions in states like Illinois are demanding even more staff increases and larger expenditures.

The liberal justices are right about one thing: This is a fight over “the essence of public education.” However, it is the parents, not the educators (or these justices) who are trying to restore public education to meet the demands for a diverse nation.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and the best-selling author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

The Senate version of President Trump’s Big, Beautiful Bill (BBB) will add nearly $3.3 trillion to US deficits over a decade, according to the latest estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, half a trillion more than the $2.8 trillion in deficit expansion under the House version of the same bill.

The CBO score for the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill reflects a $4.5 trillion decrease in revenues (i.e. tax cuts relative to the pre-TCJA baseline) and a $1.2 trillion decrease in spending through 2034, relative to a current law baseline. 

The Senate bill, by Republican request, was also scored as saving $508 billion over a decade relative to a current policy baseline. The party’s lawmakers have sought to use the accounting maneuver to permanently extend President Donald Trump’s 2017 income-tax cuts, and score them as costing nothing.

While this approach is expected to pass, it effectively dooms the US to debt collapse as every subsequent administration will use the same tactic from now on and pretend that trillions in incremental spending every 4 years are really just an extension of the baseline. Meanwhile, the US is set to hit $40 trillion in debt in less than 2 years.

What does this mean? It means that Senate Republicans slapped a price tag on their tax package that is nearly 90% lower than the version that recently passed the House. They didn’t bring the price down by changing the policies in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Instead, the Senate simply changed the way they did the math.

Senate Republicans are using a new method to estimate the costs of their tax package that ignores the price of continuing any tax policy in effect when the bill is passed. That method of accounting, called the “current policy” baseline, lets the Senate advertise President Donald Trump’s tax package at one-tenth of its impact on the nation’s finances as estimated by Congress’s usual way of counting costs. If the costs were estimated in the traditional way, the Senate’s proposed tax package would add $4.2 trillion to the national debt, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

“This would be the biggest and maybe most economically costly gimmick in American history,” said Marc Goldwein, vice president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, in a post on X.

As a result, Senate Republicans have moved forward with a plan to mask the $3.8 trillion cost of extending expiring tax cuts.  GOP senators voted Monday in favor of the plan to count the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts as costing nothing, over objections from Democrats and despite concerns raised by economists about the US debt trajectory. 

Republicans argue that using this accounting method, known as “current policy,” would allow them to include more tax cuts in Trump’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill.”

The cost of extending Trump’s first-term tax cuts, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, totals $3.8 trillion. The other tax provisions in the bill cost nearly $693 billion, and only that smaller figure is considered in the official price tag for the bill.

Use of the current policy baseline is unprecedented for the reconciliation process the Republicans are using to approve the massive legislation with a simple majority. The cost of a bill is normally measured according to what effect it would have on the federal budget under current law. But the Republicans want to revise the process by assuming that current policies remain in place indefinitely. 

The reason for this accounting gimmickry is that the bill’s staggering cost – which ends up adding substantially to the deficit instead of cutting it as some had expected as recently as weeks ago – has been a big problem for fiscal conservatives. It has faced several obstacles in the Senate as lawmakers have demanded conflicting changes. Then a number of spending cuts included in the package were changed as they did not comply with Senate rules for the reconciliation process. 

Democrats and some economists argue that use of the current policy baseline allows GOP lawmakers to circumvent rules that would otherwise limit the bill’s fiscal effects. That, they say, imperils the nation’s fiscal trajectory although with the US already facing guaranteed debt collapse, may as well go full throttle. 

“Republicans can use whatever budgetary gimmicks they want to try and make the math work on paper,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday. “But you can’t paper over the real life consequences of adding tens of trillions to the debt.”

As noted above, the cost of the Senate bill is higher than the CBO’s $2.8 trillion projected cost of the version passed by the House last month, which also accounts for economic effects and higher interest rates spurred by larger debt loads.

As Bloomberg notes, the legislation encompasses much of Trump’s economic agenda: in addition to the 2017 tax break extension, effectively making it permanent, it would make make various spending cuts to safety net programs, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.

The Senate version made three business tax breaks permanent, limits deductions on new tax breaks on workers’ tips and overtime and includes changes to some of the Medicaid provisions.

House and Senate Republicans have also reached a deal to alter the cap on federal deductions for state and local taxes. That limit will remain at the $40,000 limit set in the House bill, but it will be limited to a five-year period, rather than 10 years.

Of course there is a simple way to keep track of how much is being spent by the US government, and that’s simply to add up US federal government spending, using operating cash withdrawals from the Treasury’s cash balance as proxy. It hardly needs to be explained. 

All accounting gimicks aside, at the end of the day just one number matters, and it’s pretty clear: the House version of the BBB seeks to add $4 trillion to the debt ceiling, pushing it to $40 trillion. The Senate version: $5 trillion. 

In retrospect, Andrew Yang’s take that the Big Beautiful Bill should be called the BBB Act because that’s what the US Credit Rating will be in a few years, will end up being optimistic.

The Big Beautiful Bill should be called the BBB Act because that’s what the US Credit Rating will be in a few years.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) June 4, 2025

By Benjamin Picton, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

US equities closed higher on Friday, the Dollar fell and Treasuries bull-steepened as markets extended the risk rally sparked by the Israel-Iran ceasefire. The NASDAQ and S&P500 both reset record highs. The latter is now up almost 5% for the year after being flat YTD as recently as the final week of May. Equity futures point higher again today on anticipation that this week could see Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill clear Congress, and trade deals concluded with India and Japan.

It’s not all good news though. Last week’s third read of US Q1 GDP saw growth revised down from an already bad -0.2% to -0.5%. The negative print is largely courtesy of surging imports as firms sought to front-run tariffs, but the latest downgrade is mostly due to a lower read for growth in consumer spending. That was revised down from 1.2% to 0.5% for the quarter on softer services spending.

Meanwhile, the GDP price index and core PCE price index were both revised one-tick higher to 3.8% and 3.5% respectively and May core PCE figures released later in the week posted a slight upside surprise to print at 0.2% MoM and 2.7% YoY, despite consumer spending recording a 0.3% monthly decline. Earlier in the week the Conference Board’s consumer confidence index fell from 98.4 to 93, new home sales and building permits underperformed expectations and the advance goods trade deficit for May widened to $96.6bn.

There were some bright spots in last week’s data – May durable goods orders rose 16.4% and weekly jobless claims were lower than expected – but the overall impression is of an economy losing steam. Donald Trump is happy to lay the blame for this at the feet of “stupid” and “too slow” Fed Chair Powell, who he says has done a lousy job by not cutting the Fed Funds rate to somewhere between 1-2%.

As noted in this Daily last week, Trump has said that he is “very close” to announcing a successor for Powell. The only problem with that is that Powell still has 11 months left to run as Fed Chair, so announcing a successor now would effectively allow Trump to armchair quarterback monetary policy decisions as Trump himself has said that he won’t appoint anyone who isn’t totally onboard with cutting the Fed Funds rate. For a President who revels in slaying the sacred cows of neoliberal economics, central bank independence looks like an easy target.

Trump is often accused of a lack of interest in details, but it surely wouldn’t have escaped his notice that the Congressional Budget Office just said that the Senate-approved version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add $3.3trn to cumulative US deficits over the next 10 years. That’s from a starting point with debt to GDP already in excess of 120% and the fiscal deficit sitting close to a peacetime record. Andrew Yang facetiously Tweeted earlier this month that the bill “should be called the BBB Act because that’s what the US Credit Rating will be in a few years.”

The Big Beautiful Bill should be called the BBB Act because that’s what the US Credit Rating will be in a few years.

— Andrew Yang🧢⬆️🇺🇸 (@AndrewYang) June 4, 2025

With an economy starting to slide and financing pressures everywhere you look, it’s really no wonder that Trump is so keen to bring interest rates under executive control. Sniffing the wind, Martin Sandbu warns in the Financial Times to “get ready to embark on a new era of financial repression.” Private capital for state aims (whether you like it or not!) is a theme we have been pointing to for some time as a logical extension of the fact that the math ain’t mathin’ on policy ambition vs fiscal headroom. At least not under neoclassical assumptions of budget constraints, inflation targets and independent central banking.

You can see examples of creeping financial repression everywhere, whether it be the prevalence of negative real rates, bank liquidity rules creating a forced bid for government debt, a possible Mar-a-Lago Accord to devalue the Dollar and hold borrowing costs low, ex-Chancellor Jeremy Hunt pushing British pension funds to invest in private equity, or Aussie Treasurer Chalmers pushing pension funds to invest in housing, renewable energy and infrastructure. China, as Sandbu points out, has adopted financial repression as policy for years.

Globalized capital markets is an article of faith on Wall Street, but with Trump remaking international trade and international relations in a more nationalist and more realist image, does anyone really believe that free movement of international capital will escape the zeitgeist? Does Mark Carney believe that after Trump just abandoned trade talks with Canada over the latter’s imposition of a digital services tax (now rescinded)? Will Pedro Sanchez believe it as Spain is threatened with double tariffs over its recalcitrance in meeting NATO defense spending targets? Spare a thought for Australia, who is imposing non-tariff barriers on US tech AND refusing to play ball on defence spending while simultaneously crossing fingers and toes that the US will honor a Biden-era commitment to sell the Aussies scarce nuclear submarines.

For a vibe check on how quickly things can change you need only look to the Middle East, where the unique capabilities of US power (and the willingness to use those capabilities) have just been demonstrated. This has left Iran’s Axis of Resistance in tatters, Israel confirmed as a regional power, Syria set to join the Abraham Accords, China and Russia taking another strategic L in West Asia, and oil continuing to be priced in Dollars.

So, while financial repression seems inevitable and we might ordinarily be tempted to get short the US Dollar because of it, or because TACO, it might be worth considering whether it makes sense to be short US B-2 bombers and carrier strike groups, and whether the appropriate acronym for the Dollar might actually be TINA.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday criticized Federal Reserve policymakers for what he described as their hesitant posture on interest rates, while signaling that the U.S. Treasury is unlikely to alter its current strategy on debt issuance by increasing long-term bond sales.

In a wide-ranging interview, Bessent said that recent yields on long-duration Treasurys make it a poor time to lengthen the government’s debt profile. “Why would we do that?” Bessent said on Bloomberg Television. “The time to have done that would have been in 2021, 2022.”

Ten-year Treasury yields currently stand at about 4.26%, well above the levels of shorter-term instruments such as the two-year note (3.73%) and 12-month bills (3.81%). Bessent suggested issuing more long-term bonds at these rates would be counterproductive, especially given his expectation that inflation will continue to moderate and pull interest rates lower across the maturity spectrum.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated it wouldn’t make sense for the government to ramp up sales of longer-term securities given where yields are today, though he held out hope that interest rates across maturities will be falling as inflation slows https://t.co/aVi8yJyDOT pic.twitter.com/5yqcNjFCXQ

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) June 30, 2025

“As we see inflation come down, I think the whole curve in parallel can shift down,” he said, referencing the Treasury yield curve, a key barometer for economic sentiment.

Bessent, who succeeded Janet Yellen as Treasury chief, has retained much of his predecessor’s issuance strategy, despite having previously criticized her for over-reliance on short-term borrowing. At the time, he argued the policy was politically motivated to suppress long-term borrowing costs ahead of the 2024 election.

But Bessent emphasized that now is not the moment to pivot. “Why would we do it at these rates, if we are more than one standard deviation above the long-term rate?” he asked rhetorically.

Fed ‘Frozen at the Wheel’

While expressing confidence in the direction of fiscal policy and trade strategy, Bessent leveled pointed criticism at the Federal Reserve’s rate-setting stance. They “seem a little frozen at the wheel,” he said of Fed officials. “My worry here is that, having fallen down on the American people in 2022, the Fed’s now looking at their feet,” rather than looking ahead.

The Treasury Secretary cited the Fed’s delayed response to rising prices in 2022 as a pivotal misstep and warned that similar inertia could hinder the central bank’s ability to respond to changing economic conditions. “The Fed made a gigantic mistake in 2022,” he added.

Bessent also pushed back against the idea that recent tariffs have stoked inflation. “We have seen no inflation from tariffs,” he said, calling such effects “transitory” and suggesting they result in only a one-time price adjustment. He hinted at more trade activity on the horizon, saying he expects a “flurry of trade deals” in the days leading up to the July 9 negotiating deadline. The U.S. has already reached agreements with the United Kingdom and China, with ongoing talks still underway.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent discusses the July 9 deadline for trade deals and the potential to “spring back to the April 2 levels” on tariffs for countries that can’t get a deal across the line https://t.co/sI2bIFyJ9z pic.twitter.com/HaKopYwcjx

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) June 30, 2025

Meanwhile, as speculation mounts over who might succeed Fed Chair Jerome Powell when his term ends in May 2026, Bessent acknowledged that discussions are already underway. “Obviously there are people who are currently at the Fed who are under consideration,” he said, adding that the administration is eyeing the January 2026 seat opening as a potential stepping stone for the next chair.

Observers have noted Governor Christopher Waller – a Trump-era appointee who has recently called for possible rate cut – as a likely contender. Bessent also mentioned that current Governor Adriana Kugler’s term concludes in January, providing another possible opening for strategic appointments.

He downplayed speculation about his own interest in the job. “I’ll do whatever the president wants,” he said, but added that he already has the “best job in DC”

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says he “has the best job in DC,” and that the administration will be working on Fed Chair Powell’s successor over the coming months https://t.co/hDX84K48mZ pic.twitter.com/JulxyYoppy

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) June 30, 2025

Looking forward, Bessent expressed optimism about the direction of U.S. fiscal strategy. He voiced support for the Republican budget bill currently advancing in Congress, describing it as a “start” in the effort to bring U.S. debt under control while promoting economic growth.

Bessent also suggested that we could see a lowering of rates, as inflation is “very tame,” adding that he is confident the fiscal policy bill will progress in the coming hours.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says that the proposed Medicaid cuts will get able-bodied people back to work, and bring enrollment down to pre-Covid levels https://t.co/rhGgfhuuR5 pic.twitter.com/Mg9ipQEikp

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) June 30, 2025

Authored by Amin Haqshanas via CoinTelegraph.com,

Stablecoins have become the backbone of internet payments, with adoption now outpacing major traditional card networks in onchain volume, according to Noam Hurwitz, head of engineering at Alchemy.

Hurwitz told Cointelegraph that stablecoins have seen “explosive” adoption, adding that they are “becoming the default settlement layer for the internet.”

Companies like PayPal and Stripe are integrating stablecoins to leverage onchain infrastructure, enabling faster and cheaper transactions. “They’ve already surpassed Visa and Mastercard in onchain volume by 7%,” Hurwitz noted, signaling a decisive shift in how money moves online.

Alchemy, which provides infrastructure to some of the largest stablecoin ecosystems, is at the center of this transformation. Hurwitz said Alchemy is “the onchain provider for Robinhood Wallet” and powers stablecoin flows for fintech giants like Visa, Stripe, Circle, and PayPal.

Stablecoins used for various purposes

Hurwitz said that stablecoins make money “cheap, fast, global, and secure to transfer.” These features have made them popular for various purposes, with broad adoption emerging across cross-border payments and prediction markets like Polymarket.

He added that stablecoins have become massive buyers of US Treasurys, with Tether alone generating $13 billion in profits last year while holding around $113 billion in US debt. “Tokenized money is the base of the tokenized financial system,” Hurwitz said, calling recent financial innovation built on this foundation “exciting.”

Tether holds more US Treasurys than Germany. Source: TFTC

Hurwitz said stablecoins are already functioning as the “default rails” for internet payments in many respects but flagged challenges stemming from the fragmented blockchain landscape.

Institutions, he explained, want to move quickly but must assess provider reliability and counterparty risks, especially in a nascent industry. “Can a small startup really support enterprise-grade operations while building and scaling the services they need?” he asked.

Hurwitz pointed to Kinexys, a tokenized bank deposit launched by JP Morgan, as a major milestone. The permissioned deposit token enables institutional clients to access yield-bearing deposits on a public blockchain with “24/7 settlement, near real-time liquidity and the potential ability to pay interest to holders.”

Interest in stablecoins surge with new regulations

Last week, the US Senate passed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, a landmark bill establishing federal guardrails for stablecoins.

“With the recent passage of the Genius Act, the regulatory landscape is becoming clearer and more structured, which benefits established financial players while also encouraging innovation,” Hurwitz said.

Meanwhile, Hurwitz pointed out key technical bottlenecks in improving developer and end-user experience despite strong growth. “Companies benefit immensely from settling on crypto rails, but want to decouple the user experience from the underlying technology — and doing so takes deep technical expertise,” he explained.

Looking ahead, Hurwitz expects most financial services to deploy their own blockchains, especially layer 2 networks, to better scale and monetize their ecosystems.

He predicted that infrastructure improvements would drive “seamless crosschain interoperability” between these networks, enabling a more connected and efficient financial system built on stablecoins.

Despite Hurwitz’s optimistic view of stablecoins, a new Bank for International Settlements (BIS) report challenges the notion that they can serve as money in a modern financial system.

The BIS Annual Economic Report 2025 claims stablecoins fail critical singleness, elasticity, and integrity tests. The organization described stablecoins as “digital bearer instruments” that resemble financial assets more than actual money. 

A mysterious blast struck a tanker carrying 1 million barrels of oil near Libya, and the vessel is now being towed to Greece for damage assessment, according to Bloomberg, citing a statement from the ship’s manager. The incident comes amid growing concerns about attacks on commercial vessels navigating highly contested waters, including the Strait of Hormuz and other key shipping lanes.

The Vilamoura suffered a severe explosion that appears to have led to significant water intake, flooding the tanker’s engine room. The exact cause of the blast—and whether it originated inside or outside the ship—remains unclear. 

Interestingly, Bloomberg compiled ship-tracking data on the Vilamoura’s recent sails, revealing that the tanker visited the Russian port of Ust-Luga in early April, where it loaded Kazakh-origin barrels. It also had a port calling at the Caspian Pipeline Consortium terminal near the Russian port of Novorossiysk in May, which primarily handles Kazakh oil. 

The explosion remains suspicious given the tanker’s recent routes and raises the possibility of a covert allied special forces operation aimed at paralyzing the tanker known for hauling Russian crude. While purely speculative at this stage, the theory is not entirely far-fetched given the ongoing war in Ukraine as European maritime authorities prepare to launch a formal investigation into the incident.

Related maritime news:

• Container Ship Sinks In Arabian Sea Near Oman As Regional Conflict Worsens

• Widespread GPS Jamming Across Strait Of Hormuz; Six Supertankers Perform Abrupt U-Turns

• Ship Carrying 800 EVs Abandoned In Pacific After Fire Breaks Out

.  .  . 

Authored by Adam Millsap viathe American Institute for Economic Research (AIER),

The Trump administration has increased tariff rates on dozens of countries in part to kickstart trade policy negotiations. These tariffs include 10-percent tariffs on dozens of countries, tariffs of over 30 percent on China, 50-percent tariffs on steel and aluminum, and 25-percent tariffs on autos. While the specifics of each negotiation will vary depending on the country’s role in the global economy and its current trade laws, there are three high-level goals relevant to all countries Trump should pursue. If he is successful, these negotiations will make US manufacturers more competitive, keep prices low for consumers, improve America’s ability to confront China, and help reduce the risk of a global trade war.

The US Court of International Trade recently ruled that many of Trump’s tariffs are illegal, but they’ve been allowed to remain in place pending appeal. In the meantime, Trump’s administration is discussing trade policy with several countries. This is wise since keeping the tariffs in place long-term will hurt the US economy. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that Trump’s reciprocal tariff plan would reduce GDP by six percent and wages by five percent if it became permanent. A middle-income household would face a long-term income loss of $22,000. This income loss would offset nearly 15 years of tax savings that the average family receives from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Trump’s signature tax plan from his first term.

The primary goal of Trump’s trade negotiations should be to expand trade by reducing tariff rates and other trade barriers.

Here are three ways his administration could achieve this goal.

• First, negotiate zero-for-zero tariffs on manufacturing inputs that would remove tariffs on inputs needed by USmanufacturers. These could be modeled on the terms contained in the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that expanded access to intermediate inputs for thousands of small and medium-sized US manufacturers, allowing them to expand production and increase jobs for American workers. Agreeing to similar terms with other countries would ensure American manufacturers can get the materials they need to produce high-quality products.

• Second, negotiate the elimination of non-tariff foreign trade barriers that inhibit US exports, US foreign direct investment, and US electronic commerce. Trade barriers include laws, regulations, policies, and practices—including non-market policies and practices—that distort or undermine competition. Examples include inadequate intellectual property protections, local content requirements, export subsidies, and unnecessary safety or sanitary standards. Country-specific examples that should be reformed are provided annually by the United States Trade Representative in its National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers.

• Third, negotiate tougher trade enforcement provisions to prevent China and other countries from evading US trade laws by rerouting exports to the United States through other countries. Countries should agree to allocate more resources to the enforcement of trade laws and verifying the country of origin of the goods that cross their borders. This would protect US consumers and firms from illegal or unsafe goods and help maintain the integrity of the global trade system.

Reducing tariffs on manufacturing inputs, eliminating non-tariff trade barriers, and improving enforcement of US trade laws would help the Trump administration accomplish several of its goals. First, US exports would be more competitive, which would boost manufacturing output and create jobs. Second, the cost of inputs would be reduced, and reciprocal tariff rates could be lowered, which would help keep consumer prices low. Third, by enhancing enforcement of US trade laws, the administration would be better equipped to address China’s objectionable trade policies without unduly inhibiting mutually beneficial trade with friendlier countries.

Nations that close themselves off from the world stagnate and fail. The best known example is China’s inward turn that started in the fifteenth century and lasted until the late twentieth. China missed out on the industrial revolution and by the 1800s it had dramatically fallen behind the West. Today, it is still playing catch-up.

Trump has an opportunity to improve international trade policy and ensure that America plays a leading role in the global economy for decades to come.

Prepare to be disorientated this holiday shortened week, as payrolls sees a rare Thursday print ahead of the Independence Day holiday on Friday, with both JOLTS and ADP labor reports ahead of the Payrolls report. We also have the US ISMs tomorrow and Wednesday, and the various global PMI numbers from tomorrow which will give us a good guide to global economic momentum in June.

Elsewhere, DB’s Jim Reid notes that a highlight will be the ECB forum in Sintra starting today and the European inflation numbers today and tomorrow. The US tax bill should be finalized this week although at the moment it needs to pass the Senate today (or possibly tomorrow), after a drama filled weekend of horse trading, and then back to the House for final approval. The President wants it done by Friday’s holiday. At that point attention will swiftly focus to the July 9th deadline extension for reciprocal tariffs, but not before we first hear from Powell again tomorrow during the ECB Sintra conclave. Indeed you’ll probably get headlines build up this week and the risk to the market is that with the S&P 500 hitting a new record high at the end of last week, with Treasury yields more becalmed, and with a new tax cutting bill, it’s possible that the Trump Administration feels emboldened to be aggressive again. On Friday the US announced that they were stopping trade talks with Canada in retaliation for their digital service taxes and that new tariffs would be launched within a week. However, overnight Canada has dropped this tax to enable talks to restart. This is perhaps a warning shot for the world. So before next Wednesday a lot of water will flow under the global trade bridge.

Let’s go through a few of the week’s main highlights of the week ahead, but remember the full day-by-day calendar is at the end as usual.

For payrolls, DB expects the headline number (+100k forecast vs. +139k previously) to be slightly below the consensus of +113k, with a similar story for private payrolls (DB +100k, consensus +110k, vs. +140k previously). This would also be below the three-month average of 135k and 133k, respectively. Their rationale is based on 1) initial jobless claims being up 8.8% during the June survey week relative to May; and 2) their observation of a recent pattern of subdued summer payroll gains. They also expect the unemployment rate to edge up a tenth to 4.3% but with the risks skewed to it staying unchanged.

Although 100k on payrolls seems low, economists think the breakeven rate which keeps the unemployment rate steady, is around 100k at the moment and could even be as low as 50k given the Trump Administrations’ migration policies. If correct, we could have a situation where low payroll growth still tightens the labor market. 

Leading up to payrolls we have JOLTS tomorrow, ADP on Wednesday and also watch out for the employment components in today’s Chicago PMI, tomorrow’s manufacturing ISM, and Wednesday’s Services ISM.

In Europe, the big event will be the ECB’s forum on central banking in Sintra running from today through to Wednesday. The policy panel tomorrow will feature heads of the Fed, the ECB, the BoJ, the BoE and the BoK. So plenty of potential headlines there. The ECB will also release its account of the June policy meeting on Thursday and their consumer expectations survey is due tomorrow. Elsewhere in Europe, the BoE will publish its DMP, bank liabilities and credit conditions surveys on Thursday.

In terms of European data, June CPI will continue to be in focus after Friday’s prints for France and Spain showed a slight uptick in inflation. Reports for Germany and Italy are out today, with the Eurozone-wide release scheduled for tomorrow. Swiss inflation data is due on Thursday. We also have May German retail sales (today) and factory orders (Friday), Italian retail sales and French IP on Friday.

In Japan the BoJ’s Q2 Tankan survey results come out tomorrow with our economists forecasting that the business condition index for large manufacturers in the Tankan survey will worsen -3 points to +9. They expect a similar gauge for large non-manufacturers to slip -2 points to +33. This could be one of a few factors that help influence whether the BoJ hikes again in July, although there’s lots of moving parts at the moment including trade agreements with the US.

Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day calendar of events

Monday June 30

• Data: US June MNI Chicago PMI, Dallas Fed manufacturing activity, China June official PMIs, UK June Lloyds Business Barometer, May net consumer credit, M4, Q1 current account balance, Japan May industrial production, housing starts, Germany June CPI, May retail sales, import price index, Italy June CPI, Eurozone May M3
• Central banks: ECB’s forum on central banking in Sintra (through July 2), Lagarde speaks, Fed’s Bostic and Goolsbee speak

Tuesday July 1

• Data: US June ISM index, Dallas Fed services activity, total vehicle sales, May JOLTS report, construction spending, China June Caixin manufacturing PMI, Japan Q2 Tankan survey, June consumer confidence index, Germany June unemployment claims rate, Italy June manufacturing PMI, new car registrations, budget balance, Eurozone June CPI
• Central banks: A policy panel at ECB’s forum in Sintra featuring Fed’s Chair Powell, ECB’s President Lagarde, BoJ’s Governor Ueda and BoE’s Governor Bailey, ECB’s Guindos, Elderson and Schnabel speak, ECB’s May consumer expectations survey

Wednesday July 2

• Data: US June ADP report, Japan June monetary base, France May budget balance, Italy May unemployment rate, Eurozone May unemployment rate, Canada June manufacturing PMI
• Central banks: ECB’s Lagarde, Guindos, Cipollone and Lane speak, BoE’s Taylor speaks

Thursday July 3

• Data: US June jobs report, ISM services, May trade balance, factory orders, initial jobless claims, China June Caixin services PMI, UK June official reserve changes, Italy June services PMI, Canada May international merchandise trade, Switzerland June CPI
• Central banks: ECB’s account of the June meeting, Fed’s Bostic speaks, BoJ’s Takata speaks, BoE’s June DMP, Q2 bank liabilities and credit conditions surveys

Friday July 4

• Data: UK June new car registrations, construction PMI, Japan May household spending, Germany June construction PMI, May factory orders, France May industrial production, Italy May retail sales, Eurozone May PPI
• Central banks: ECB’s Villeroy speaks, BoE’s Taylor speaks
• Other: US Independence Day

* * * 

Finally, turning to the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data release this week is the employment report on Thursday. There are a few speaking engagements by Fed officials this week, including Chair Powell on Tuesday. 

Monday, June 30 

• 09:45 AM Chicago PMI, June (consensus 42.9, last 40.5)
• 10:00 AM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will speak on the US economic outlook during an event hosted by MNI Connect. Q&A is expected. On June 24, Bostic told Reuters he thinks a single rate cut of a quarter point is warranted this year and that the last quarter of the year “is sort of when [he] would expected we would know enough to move [the funds rate].”
• 01:00 PM Chicago Fed President Goolsbee (FOMC voter) speaks: Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee will speak in a moderated Q&A at the 2025 Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colorado. On June 23, Goolsbee said, “Somewhat surprisingly, thus far, the impact of tariffs has not been what people feared.” He went on to say that “If we don’t see inflation resulting from these tariff increases, then, in my mind, we never left what I was calling the golden path before April 2.”

Tuesday, July 1 

• 09:45 AM S&P Global US manufacturing PMI, June final (consensus 52.0, last 52.0)
• 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, June (GS 49.0, consensus 48.7, last 48.5): We estimate the ISM manufacturing index rebounded by 0.5pt to 49.0 in June, reflecting mixed manufacturing surveys so far for the month (GS manufacturing survey tracker -0.2pt to 49.1) but a tailwind from potential residual seasonality.
• 10:00 AM Construction spending, May (GS -0.2%, consensus -0.2%, last -0.4%)
• 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, May (GS 7,300k, consensus 7,300k, last 7,391k): We estimate that JOLTS job openings edged down to 7.3mn in May based on the signal from online job postings.
• 01:00 PM Fed Chair Powell speaks: Fed Chair Jerome Powell will participate in a panel discussion with Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda, and Bank of Korea Governor Chang Yong Rhee. Q&A is expected. In his prepared remarks before the House Financial Services Committee, Powell reiterated that the FOMC was “well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance.” When asked whether the FOMC could cut rates in July, Powell noted that “he wouldn’t want to point to a particular meeting” for the first cut and that he didn’t think the FOMC needed “to be in any rush because the economy is still strong, and the labor market is strong.”
• 05:00 PM Lightweight motor vehicle sales, June (GS 15.0mn, consensus 15.35mn, last 15.65mn)

Wednesday, July 2 

• 08:15 AM ADP employment change, June (GS +80k, consensus +90k, last +37k)

Thursday, July 3 

• 08:30 AM Trade balance, May (GS -$75.0bn, consensus -$71.1bn, last -$61.6bn); We estimate that the trade deficit rose from $61.6bn in April to $75.0bn in May, reflecting declines in goods exports and travel exports offset by a modest increase in financial services exports.
• 08:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, June (GS +85k, consensus +113k, last +139k); Private payroll employment, June (GS +85k, consensus +110k, last +140k); Average hourly earnings (MoM), June (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.4%); Unemployment rate, June (GS 4.3%, consensus 4.3%, last 4.3%): We estimate nonfarm payrolls rose 85k in June. On the positive side, the end of worker strikes will provide a 6k boost. On the negative side, big data indicators indicated a weaker pace of job creation, we assume a 25k drag from the termination of Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350k Venezuelan migrants in mid-May, and we expect roughly unchanged government payrolls (GS forecast 0k vs. 7k on average so far this year), reflecting a 15k decline in federal government payrolls that offsets a 15k increase in state and local government payrolls. We estimate that the unemployment rate edged up to 4.3% on a rounded basis—a low bar from an unrounded 4.24%—reflecting sequential increases in other measures of labor market slack. We estimate average hourly earnings rose 0.3% (month-over-month, seasonally adjusted), reflecting neutral calendar effects.
• 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended June 28 (GS 240k, consensus 241k, last 236k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended June 21 (consensus 1,950k, last 1,974k)
• 09:45 AM S&P Global US services PMI, June final (consensus 53.1, last 53.1)
• 10:00 AM Factory orders, May (GS +7.8%, consensus +8.1%, last -3.7%):  Factory orders ex-transportation, May (last -0.5%); Durable goods orders, May final (last +16.4%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, May final (last +0.5%); Core capital goods orders, May final (last +1.7%); Core capital goods shipments, May final (last +0.5%): We forecast that factory orders rose 7.8% in May, reflecting a sharp increase in nondefense aircraft and parts.
• 10:00 AM ISM services index, June (GS 51.0, consensus 50.6, last 49.9): We estimate that the ISM services index increased by 1.1pt to 51.0 in June, reflecting sequential improvement in our non-manufacturing survey tracker (+0.5pt to 50.8 in June) and a tailwind from potential residual seasonality.
• 11:00 AM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will speak on monetary policy at the IMFS Distinguished Lecture Series in Frankfurt. Speech text and Q&A are expected. 

Friday, July 4 

• US Independence Day holiday. NYSE will be closed, SIFMA recommends bond markets remain closed, and there are no major economic data releases scheduled.

Source: DB, Goldman

Via Remix News,

After underage girls were sexually assaulted in the Barbarossabad swimming pool in Gelnhausen, the CDU mayor of the area pointed out that “hot weather” makes tempers “fray.”

However, local Mayor Christian Litzinge (CDU) appeared to allude that the weather is at least partly to blame for the incident.

In a statement to Welt, he said: “Of course, it’s always high temperatures, and sometimes tempers are frayed.”

In a separate interview with Bild, he said, “We have zero tolerance for that.”

As Remix News previously reported, the first group of girls were groped and molested by the group of Syrians, but when they complained to a lifeguard, he took no action.

“Since we couldn’t see exactly what had happened, we sent the girls back into the water,” pool manager Nils Tischer explained to Hessischer Rundfunk.

It was only after more girls made a complaint from separate groups that the police were called.

In total, at least nine girls came forward, ranging in age from 11 to 17.

The girls told authorities that the four Syrians, aged 18 to 28, groped them in the lazy river, feeling them all over their bodies, including their genitals. A fifth suspect managed to escape, and police are still looking for him.

According to Mayor Christian Litzinger (CDU), all four suspects are from the same family in the Main-Kinzig district.

They were all arrested and charged, in addition to receiving a ban from the outdoor pool.

Alice Weidel, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) co-leader, also posted about the incident on social media, calling for “immediate deportations” in the case.

Sexuelle Belästigung von Mädchen: Gleich 9 Opfer zeigten sexuelle Übergriffe an, eine Gruppe “syrischer Staatsangehöriger” soll die Taten in einem Freibad im CDU-regierten Hessen begangen haben. Sofortige Ausweisung der Täter veranlassen! #DeshalbAfD pic.twitter.com/jtVkT7AeHI

— Alice Weidel (@Alice_Weidel) June 28, 2025

Attempts to downplay the problems in German swimming pools

Litzinger’s comments echo some other “excuses” offered for sexual violence and assaults from migrants at Germany’s once peaceful swimming pools. An article in 2023 from Zeit attempted to claim that much of the violence and sexual assaults were due to rising French fry prices.

At the time, Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), criticized the claim.

“Zeit blames ‘French fry prices’ for violence and sexual assaults in outdoor pools, ZDF claims an interplay of heat and the meeting of many people, Deutschlandfunk writes about too high ‘expectations’ that cannot be met. The degree to which the media trivializes migration problems no longer knows any limits,” wrote Alice Weidel, parliamentary leader of the AfD party.

Die #Zeit macht “Pommes-Preise” für Gewalt und sexuelle Übergriffe in Freibädern verantwortlich, das #ZDF ein Zusammenspiel von Hitze und dem Aufeinandertreffen vieler Menschen, der Deutschlandfunk eine zu hohe “Erwartungshaltung”, die nicht erfüllt werden könne. Der Grad der…

— Alice Weidel (@Alice_Weidel) July 17, 2023

Just a week before that statement, the actual workers at the swimming pools offered an entirely different reason for the increasing violence. Employees of the Columbiabad outdoor swimming complex in Berlin penned a letter to the Der Tagesspiegel newspaper complaining about perpetrators they describe as “mainly Arab migrants and Chechens” who are engaging in the sexual harassment of women and mass brawls on the premises, while also leaving the complexes in disgusting conditions. As a result, the entire pool was shut down for an indefinite period of time due to workers calling out sick from stress.

Remix News has long reported on the growing crime trend in German swimming pools, including mass brawls and sexual assaults, as well as attacks on police, security officials and even lifeguards working at the pools.

In 2022, Remix News covered how the president of the Federal Association of German Swimming Champions (BDS), Peter Harzheim, said he can no longer recommend that families visit such facilities on weekends. Harzheim claimed he would be “acting irresponsibly” if he attended an outdoor pool with his own three grandchildren due to violence and assaults, which the Remix News article details.

Some individuals have been seriously injured. Last year, for example, a woman had her nose broken when she was caught in the middle of a mass brawl involving foreigners.

In 2023, Welt released a popular video documentary detailing how “macho culture” from migrants was turning the swimming pools in Germany upside down.

Columbiadamm swimming pool in the multicultural neighborhood of Neukölln, Berlin, was closed down due to over 40 warring youths. Welt lays the blame squarely at the feet of “macho culture” from immigrant youth. In Pankow, a swimming pool had to be shut down twice in one week due to mass brawls between young people.

In the German city of Celle, 20 “rampaging youth” attacked swimmers and sexually assaulted them, including beating one female who rejected their advances. When lifeguards attempted to stop them, they threatened them as well. As a result, the entire swimming pool was shut down.

Read more here…