A class action lawsuit was filed Thursday against Walmart for firing Black workers with criminal records.  The suit follows years of accusations by progressive organizations claiming that Walmart has “shown a pattern of firing qualified Black workers” because of past involvement with the legal system – a practice they say perpetuates “racial and economic inequality”.

Former workers, attorneys and advocates gathered in Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago to announce the suit and argue their rationale:

“Having a record does not define you or your character,” said Marcos Ceniceros, with Warehouse Workers for Justice. “It should not determine your worth, and it certainly shouldn’t be used as an excuse to fire Black workers trying to build a better life.”

The argument assumes, of course, that Walmart has limited its firings to only black workers with criminal records.  Plaintiffs would have to show evidence that the company does not fire white workers with similar records, or that they have a blanket ban on those with criminal histories (federal law does not allow for blanket bans on hiring convicted criminals).

The criminal background issue also comes down to supply and demand – In a tightening labor market companies are less likely to overlook an employee with a record because they have plenty of applicants with clean histories.  In a choice between a criminal and non-criminal, it’s obvious who most employers would hire.  Ultimately, corporations have legal discretion to hire or not hire workers with detrimental backgrounds as long as they review all aspects of each application.

The race debate when it comes to practical business decisions is reminiscent of the ongoing conflict over “food deserts” in cities like Chicago in predominantly black neighborhoods.  Residents and city officials assert that mass retail closures in these neighborhoods constitute an attack on racial equality, but they continually ignore the key problem – High crime and high rates of theft in black areas.  

Actions have consequences, but race hustlers are trying to circumvent this reality.  Some people who have committed crimes and paid their debt to society might deserve a second chance.  Others might not.  Race has little to do with it, and it’s not up to business owners to take the risk simply because a worker is a minority.  

By extension, if a certain demographic is far more statistically prone to commit crimes, then businesses must take this into account.  They might not be able to legally admit it, but they can’t pretend the dynamic doesn’t exist.  The loss of access to employment and to close retail options is in the hands of the community and its residents.  They determine if companies stay or leave.  They determine if they are hired or fired.  

Accountability cannot be avoided forever under the guise of “equity”.    

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Oklahoma has become the latest state to request federal permission to exclude soft drinks and candy from the list of items that can be purchased through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps, Gov. Kevin Stitt announced on June 26.

Stitt made the announcement during an event at the state Capitol, alongside Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as part of his “Make Oklahoma Healthy Again” (MOHA) campaign.

According to Stitt’s office, the campaign is a state-level extension of the national Make America Healthy Again movement championed by President Donald Trump and Kennedy.

“For far too long, we have settled for food that has made us sicker as a nation,” said Stitt. “In Oklahoma, we’re choosing common sense, medical freedom, and personal responsibility.”

Stitt said Oklahoma formally submitted the federal waiver to the Department of Agriculture amid growing bipartisan concern about the link between processed food consumption and chronic illnesses.

The move means Oklahoma joins a growing list of states seeking to remove the sugary items from the federal program that helps more than 42 million low-income Americans pay for food each month.

The governors of Arkansas and Indiana each submitted waivers on April 15, citing efforts to reduce chronic disease and ensure taxpayer funds in federal food assistance programs are used to help low-income Americans afford nutritious food.

Iowa and Nebraska have also submitted similar requests, while West Virginia and Utah have begun the process of pursuing similar changes to their SNAP program.

The American Beverage Association, a trade group whose members include producers and bottlers of soft drinks such as The Coca-Cola Company, PepsiCo, and Keurig Dr Pepper, has consistently opposed the move, writing in an April statement that such waivers “won’t make an ounce of difference on health.”

The group pointed to data showing that obesity has skyrocketed in the past two decades while beverage calories per serving have dropped by 42 percent.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that approximately one in five American children and adolescents are obese, while 40 percent of school-age children and adolescents have at least one chronic health condition.

A 2016 report from the USDA showed that soft drinks were the number one food commodity by expenditure in the SNAP program.

The waivers come after Trump signed an executive order in February establishing the “Make America Healthy Again” commission as part of wider efforts to tackle America’s escalating health crisis.

The commission, which is chaired by Kennedy, is tasked with investigating and addressing the “root causes” of the crisis, with an initial focus on childhood chronic diseases. It must also produce a strategy, based on the findings of its assessment, to improve the health of America’s children.

According to the order, America’s health care system is largely focused on treating chronic illnesses instead of preventing them, which has led to a growing health crisis with serious economic and national security consequences.

As a result, Americans are becoming sicker and plagued by illnesses that the country’s medical system isn’t addressing effectively, the order says.

Speaking at the Oklahoma state Capitol, Kennedy said that if Americans want to drink a bottled soda, “you should be able to have that right,” however, he added that the federal government “should not be paying for it with taxpayer money.”

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has filed a $787 million lawsuit against Fox News claiming the company defamed him through its coverage of a phone call between the governor and President Donald Trump.

“No more lies,” Newsom wrote on social media platform X on June 27, confirming news of the lawsuit. “I’m suing Fox News for $787 million.”

The governor seeks damages for what he claims were lies about a phone call with the president. He has also asked the court for an order to stop Fox News from broadcasting or posting segments that say Newsom lied about the call.

Newsom also sent a letter to Fox News, demanding that it issue a retraction and that host Jesse Walters issue an on-air apology about the call.

If the news company and Walters meet those conditions, Newsom will drop the lawsuit.

Newsom’s latest legal action against Trump was done in a personal capacity, one of his official spokespersons, Brandon Richards, told The Epoch Times.

Rumors of a possible presidential run for Newsom have swirled in recent years, though he has denied any intention of entering the 2028 race. However, the governor hinted at the possibility in an interview with the Wall Street Journal for a profile published on June 10.

“I’m not thinking about running, but it’s a path that I could see unfold,” he said.

Fox News reported earlier this month that Newsom had lied when he claimed he did not get a call from Trump.

Trump shared with Fox News an alleged screenshot of a call the president said he had with the governor about the Los Angeles riots, dated 1:23 a.m. on June 7, that lasted 16 minutes.

“There was no call. Not even a voicemail,” Newson wrote in a June 10 post on X.

Fox News did not immediately return a request for comment.

Via The Libertarian Institute

Even after Tehran informed Washington that Iran would execute a symbolic retaliatory strike on the Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, the US military had to engage in its largest battle using Patriot missiles to date to repel the attack. 

On Monday, Iran fired 19 ballistic missiles at America’s largest Middle East air base. Most of the missiles were shot down by air defenses. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine told reporters, “We believe that this is the largest single Patriot engagement in US military history, and we were joined in this engagement by the Qatari Patriot crews.”

While Gen Caine did not disclose how many interceptors were fired, it was likely an expensive operation as each PAC-3 Patriot missile costs $4 million. Additionally, the supply of air defense is becoming increasingly limited due to the ongoing war in the Middle East and Ukraine. 

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the Senate in May, “The Ukrainians asked for air defense systems — Patriot systems, which, frankly, we don’t have.”

After Israel launched its aggressive war against Iran, Tel Aviv’s supply of interceptors quickly dwindled. Within five days of the start of the war, multiple outlets reported Tel Aviv was nearly out of Arrow-3 interceptors and only had supplies to run the Iron Dome air defense system for less than two weeks. 

By the end of the short war, Israel was forced to ration its deployment of interceptors, leaving some areas vulnerable to Iranian strikes. After the war, President Donald Trump noted that “Iran hit Israel hard.”

Throughout the 12-day conflict, the US aided Israel in shooting down incoming Iranian missiles. The assistance put a strain on the Navy’s supply of interceptors.

Adm. James Kilby, the acting chief of naval operations, said while the US had enough SM-3 interceptors, they were being used “at an alarming rate” to defend Israel. 

The SM-3 can cost between $10 million and $30 million for a single missile.

Update(1319ET): In comments to the press on Friday President Trump has reiterated his belief that Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated’ – despite skepticism voiced by leading Senators and Representatives, on both sides of the aisle.

Importantly, he’s backing off his prior words suggesting he’s ready to soften or even drop sanctions, as Iran essentially no longer has a program in his view, while saying he’s ready to bomb Iran again if it needs to happen:

President Donald Trump said on Friday he would bomb Iran again “without a question” if intelligence were to find that Iran can enrich uranium to a level higher than what he is comfortable with.

“Without a question. Absolutely,” he told reporters in the White House briefing room.

“They’re exhausted. The last thing they are thinking about is nuclear [weapons],” Trump said of Iran.

Responding to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s claim that Iran won the war, Trump said, “You got beat to hell. Israel was beat up too, they were both beat up.”

His analogy of a schoolyard fight is similar to words used for the Ukraine war previously, suggesting he is ready to step away from the Iran conflict at this point (just as he did from pushing hard for Ukraine peace). Trump also in the remarks claimed that he ‘saved’ Iran’s leader from an ‘ugly and ignominious death’ – amid reports Israel was looking to assassinate the Ayatollah.

And more in a fresh Truth Social Post:

But Trump further said both sides “violated” the ceasefire that he announced late on Monday – suggesting that for now at least he’s not ready to take further military against Iran.

The White House on Thursday had explained that the Ayatollah simply wants to save face, naturally, in proclaiming ‘victory’ over the US and Israel – but apparently Trump didn’t get the memo from press secretary Karoline Leavitt. She had answered precisely this during the prior afternoon’s press briefing.

* * * 

Iran says it is still assessing damage at its nuclear sites which were hit during the 12-day war with Israel, and which were bombed in a special Trump-ordered B-2 raid last weekend; however, Tehran has made clear it has no intention to host UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Raphael Grossi and his team for inspections.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has acknowledged that the damage was “serious” and that “a detailed assessment of the damage is being carried out by experts from the Atomic Energy Organization [of Iran].”

He said further in the Thursday state TV interview, “Now, the discussion of demanding damages [from the US and Israel] and the necessity of providing them has been placed as one of the important issues on the country’s diplomatic agenda.”

However, he clarified that an Iranian negotiating team has no plan to meet with the United States, after President Trump earlier proclaimed that Washington planned to have talks with Iran next week.

He said that leaders are still assessing whether talks with the US would be in Iran’s interest, after previously saying that the Islamic Republic doesn’t engage in negotiations under duress.

Araghchi’s remarks followed the passage of a “binding” bill by Iranian lawmakers to halt all collaboration with the UN nuclear watchdog IAEA.

As for the rejection of talks with the US next week, it flatly contradicts Trump’s words during a NATO summit presser at The Hague. “We’re going to talk to them next week, with Iran,” the president had told reporters.

“I don’t care if I have an agreement or not,” he said. “The only thing we’d be asking for is what we were asking for before about, ‘we want no nuclear.’ But we destroyed the nuclear. In other words, that’s destroyed. I said, ‘Iran will not have nuclear.’ Well, we blew it up. It’s blown up to kingdom come. And so I don’t feel very strongly about it. If we got a document, it wouldn’t be bad.”

He strongly suggested a deal is no longer needed after all, given the assertion that core nuclear components have been ‘destroyed’ and ‘obliterated’. Later the White House Press Secretary confirmed that there is as yet no meeting with the Iranians scheduled.

Meanwhile, the IAEA’s Grossi has expressed doubts: “There is a chance that much of Iran’s highly enriched uranium survived Israeli and U.S. attacks because it may have been moved by Tehran soon after the first strikes, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said on Wednesday,” according to Reuters.

The Pentagon does not want to answer this key question: where is the 440 kg of near weapons grade Highly Enriched Uranium and could it have been moved?

So I asked some nuclear experts.

Daryl Kimball, Arms Control Association, @DarylGKimball explained how Iran could and likely…

— Jennifer Griffin (@JenGriffinFNC) June 26, 2025

A Financial Times article, based on early European intelligence assessments and voiced by EU officials, has concluded something similar. “Preliminary intelligence assessments provided to European governments indicate that Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile remains largely intact following US strikes on its main nuclear sites, two officials have said,” the FT wrote Thursday.

By Philip Marey, Senior US strategist at Rabobank

Yesterday, the US dollar was under pressure – with EUR/USD peaking at 1.1744 – as speculation about Fed rate cuts increased after comments by Trump and reports in the media that he is considering nominating the next Fed Chair in the coming months. An early nomination could make the nominee the “de facto shadow chair” as his comments (only men are reported to be on the shortlist) would carry a lot of weight in the markets regarding monetary policy beyond May 2026 when Powell’s term expires. For more details on Powell’s succession and the concept of a shadow chair, see our article in International Banker from a few months ago. Meanwhile, there was more pushback against a July rate cut by several Fed speakers yesterday, specifically Daly, Collins, Barkin and Goolsbee.

One day after the NATO summit in The Hague, European leaders met in Brussels again. Now that President Trump has made a clear connection between NATO policy and trade negotiations, European leaders think they have earned trade concessions from the US for their increased contributions to NATO. A major problem is Spain which is not willing to help defend Europe by spending 5% of GDP, but it expects the EU to protect it from US tariffs. Whether other EU countries are happy with this double free riding remains to be seen. They just assigned a lot of money appeasing President Trump (and defending Europe from Russia) but Spain could ruin the EU-US trade negotiations. Yesterday, European leaders discussed trade concessions to the US, including lowering tariffs, reducing non-tariff barriers, buying more US products including LNG, and cooperating with the US to tackle its economic concerns with China.

In other trade news, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that a trade “deal” with China had been signed two days ago, although this appears to be essentially the truce reached last month in Geneva. He added that there are imminent plans to reach agreements with 10 major trading partners.

Meanwhile, the spinning of the Fordow attack is in full force on both sides. While the White House maintains that the nuclear facility was obliterated, Iran is downplaying the impact and both sides claim victory. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Dan Caine gave a joint press conference providing more details about the air strike, but they offered no new evidence about the effectiveness of the attack.

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Finance issued a statement that the proposed introduction of Section 899 to the Internal Revenue Code would be removed from the One Big Beautiful Bill because of a forthcoming international tax agreement announced by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Section 899 would have introduced retaliatory taxes on foreign companies from countries that impose “unfair taxes” on US companies, such as undertaxed profits rules, digital services taxes, and diverted profits taxes.

“We applaud President Trump and his team for protecting the interests of American workers and businesses after years of congressional Republicans sounding the alarm on the Biden Administration’s unilateral global tax surrender under Pillar 2.  Reaching a joint understanding with the G7 means the U.S. can reclaim tens of billions of dollars that had been ceded from our tax base by Democrats’ America-Last policy. At the request of Secretary Bessent and in light of this joint understanding to preserve U.S. tax sovereignty and allow U.S. tax laws to co-exist with the Pillar 2 regime, we will remove proposed tax code Section 899 from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and we look forward to active engagement with Treasury on these important issues. We are committed to restoring Americans’ confidence in our representative government by putting America first.  Congressional Republicans stand ready to take immediate action if the other parties walk away from this deal or slow walk its implementation.”

The last sentence of the statement can be seen as a threat to foreign governments that the US Congress could still adopt Section 899 if the new international tax agreement is violated.

Meanwhile, progress of the One Big Beautiful Bill in the Senate was dealt a blow by the Senate parliamentarian. The Senate’s rules arbiter decided that several spending cuts proposed in the bill did not qualify for the reconciliation process that allows the bill to be passed with a simple majority. Republicans hope to remedy this by changing the wording and are still sticking to their self-imposed July 4 deadline to get the bill to President Trump’s desk. However, if the Senate parliamentarian is not going to be convinced, they may have to drop these spending cuts which would make it harder to reach their budget targets and meet the Independence Day deadline.

Day Ahead

In politics, the US Senate intended to start voting today on the One Big Beautiful Bill. However, this could be delayed by the procedural clash with the Senate parliamentarian. Over a month ago, the House of Representatives passed its version with a narrow 215-214 vote. When it comes to a vote, the margins in the Senate are also small. There are 53 Republican senators, but libertarian Rand Paul is expected to vote no because of the debt limit increase included in the bill. Other fiscal hawks, in particular Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, and Mike Lee are demanding more savings in the bill, such as bigger spending cuts and a faster expiration of clean-energy tax credits. However, this is a difficult balancing act for Senate Majority Leader John Thune because at the other end of the Republican spectrum, the “Medicaid moderates”, in particular Thom Tillis, Josh Hawley and Susan Collins think the bill’s Medicaid cuts are too deep. Lisa Murkowski, Jerry Moran and Jim Justice are also considered to be part of this group. Meanwhile, there is disagreement about the increase in the cap (to $40,000) on how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they owe in federal taxes state and local taxes (SALT). This was negotiated by House Republicans from high tax states, such as California, New Jersey and New York. However, many Republican senators want to keep this at the level of the TCJA ($10,000).

Once the Senate has passed its version, the House could accept the adjusted version early next week and send the bill to President Trump who can then sign it into law by July 4, or reject it. However, the self-imposed Independence Day deadline is symbolic and there is no X-date until August at the earliest and the fiscal cliff from the income tax provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is at end of the year. So a modest delay would have no major consequences other than ruining Trump’s good mood after getting the royal treatment at the NATO summit in The Hague.

Masayoshi Son is positioning SoftBank to become the “world’s top platformer” for Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), aiming to control the core architecture, compute infrastructure, and strategic partnerships that will enable ASI. Yet even as Son charts SoftBank’s course for the 2030s, the 67-year-old says he’s preparing to hand over the reins—though he won’t name a successor until the last minute.

Bloomberg reports SoftBank’s Son is preparing to step aside and will hand over leadership to an internal successor…

“I’m mentally prepared for anything, and am ready to hand over the reins at any time,” Son told shareholders at a meeting in Tokyo earlier today. He added that he won’t name the individual until the last minute to avoid fostering arrogance. “It’s a delicate balance.”

He revealed that SoftBank now controls key AI chip architecture and plans to invest up to $30 billion in OpenAI. The group also recently acquired Graphcore and is in talks to buy Ampere Computing.

Son emphasized the importance of controlling AI infrastructure in a “winner-take-all” era, anchored by SoftBank’s stake in chip designer Arm. He discussed plans to ‘Make America Great Again‘ by establishing an Arizona hub modeled after China’s Shenzhen, potentially in partnership with TSMC, which is investing heavily in the U.S.

“We want to become the world’s top platformer for ASI,” he said, adding, “I’m all in.” 

Son didn’t disclose a specific reason or timeline for stepping down, but with SoftBank’s ability to fund bold AI bets by heavily relying on Japanese retail investors, installing younger leadership ahead of the 2030s may be a strategic move to strengthen confidence and align with a new generation of investors. 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The United States will not provide money to a global vaccine organization called Gavi until the group changes the way it responds to vaccine safety issues, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told a fundraiser for the organization on June 25.

“There’s much that I admire about Gavi, especially its commitment to making medicine affordable to all the world’s people. Gavi has done that part of its job very well,” Kennedy said in recorded remarks played at the summit.

“Unfortunately, in its zeal to promote universal vaccination, it has neglected the key issue of vaccine safety.”

The United States has provided $8 billion to Gavi since 2001. The United States is one of the organization’s largest funding sources.

In its zeal to promote universal vaccination, @gavi, the Vaccine Alliance has neglected the key issue of vaccine safety. When vaccine safety issues have come before GAVI, it has treated them not as a patient health problem, but as a public relations problem.

During the COVID-19… pic.twitter.com/z140rJQMnn

— Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy) June 25, 2025

That investment must be justified, according to Kennedy.

“I’ll tell you how to start taking vaccine safety seriously: Consider the best science available, even when the science contradicts established paradigms. Until that happens, the United States won’t contribute more to Gavi,” he said.

Gavi said in a statement that the group “fully concurs with the Secretary for Health and Human Services on the need to consider all available science, and remains committed to continuing an evidence-based and scientific approach to its work and investment decisions, as it always has done.”

Gavi says on its website that it helps vaccinate more than 50 percent of the children in the world against various diseases.

It said in a separate statement that it is enacting reforms, including restructuring to reduce costs.

The organization’s pledging summit took place Wednesday in Brussels. It was co-hosted by the European Union and the Gates Foundation.

The Gates Foundation said in a statement this week that it will give $1.6 billion to Gavi over the next five years, calling the alliance “one of the most effective mechanisms for delivering lifesaving vaccines to children and preventing disease in the world’s most vulnerable communities.”

The United States committed $300 million to Gavi in the funding bill for fiscal year 2025, but the Trump administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 does not include funding for the group.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the top minority member on the Senate Health Committee, lamented Kennedy’s announcement during a hearing in Washington on Wednesday. He asked Susan Monarez, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about the development.

“I believe the global health security preparedness is a critical and vital activity for the United States,” she said.

“I think vaccines save lives. I think that we need to continue to support the promotion and utilization of vaccines,” she added later, promising Sanders that if she receives confirmation, she will look into the matter.

A vaccine advisory panel whose members were all chosen by Kennedy was also meeting on Wednesday. The panel announced it would be examining the effects of the CDC’s childhood immunization schedule as well as vaccines that have not been reviewed for seven years and consider whether to change the current recommendations for Hepatitis B vaccines.

Trump previously ordered officials to withdraw from several other international groups, including the World Health Organization (WHO), over concerns about their goals.

Kennedy said after meeting with Argentinian officials in May that the United States and Argentina—both of which withdrew from WHO earlier this year—are focused on “the creation of an alternative international health system based on gold-standard science and free from totalitarian impulses, corruption, and political control.”

Following this morning’s very modest rise in Core PCE (coming just a couple of weeks after CPI disappointed the Trump Tariff infation fear-mongers once again) and a month since the UMich survey found that “Women, Democrats, & Low-Income Americans Are Out Of Their TDS-Addled Minds“, and one week after Goldman finally called out the idiocy of the UMich survey, slamming its “partisanship” and the “sample design break starting from June 2024“…

… not to mention that it has been chronically wrong, warning that “Michigan inflation expectations have already risen even more than in 2022 and this time long-term expectations have risen sharply too, all before tariffs have even meaningfully boosted consumer prices” while “technicalities have exaggerated the increase in the Michigan [inflation] survey, as other survey measures and market-implied inflation compensation have not risen much at horizons beyond the next year”, moments ago the final UMich survey for the month of June saw some notable revisions to the prelim prints, to wit:

The final June sentiment index increased to 60.7 from 52.2 a month earlier, according to the University of Michigan.

The 8.5-point increase was the largest since the start of 2024. The median estimate in a Bloomberg survey of economists called for no change from the preliminary reading of 60.5.

“The improvement was broad-based across numerous facets of the economy,’’ Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement.

“With the recent moderation in both tariff levels and trade policy volatility, consumers now appear to believe that their worst fears may not come to pass and have moderated their expectations accordingly.”

More notably, consumers expect prices to rise 5% over the next year, data released Friday showed. That is down slightly from the preliminary reading. It’s also far better than the 6.6% registered in May – the biggest monthly improvement since 2001.

They saw costs rising at an annual rate of 4% over the next five to 10 years, also lower than a month earlier.

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood, it was Democrats that eased back (very modestly) on their inflation fears (over the short term)…

Source: Bloomberg

…and over the medium term (but independents seem to have caught the ‘tariff derangement syndrome)…

Source: Bloomberg

As a reminder, its the Democratic-run states that are seeing the highest level of inflation, so perhaps they’re on to something…

Source: Bloomberg

The latest data suggest sluggish household demand, especially for services, extended into May after the weakest quarter for consumer spending since the onset of the pandemic.

“Consumer views are still broadly consistent with an economic slowdown and an increase in inflation to come,” Hsu said.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Denver City Council has voted unanimously to shutter a highly successful anti-theft auto license plate tracking system. The system was not closed due to concerns about privacy or finances. It was shut down because Democratic members believed that ICE could use the data to deport illegals.

In May, the council refused to renew the $666,000 contract with Flock for camera monitors around 70 Denver intersections to screen for car theft.

That system resulted in the recovery of 170 stolen cars and 300 arrests. It is also credited with key evidence in the investigation of hit-and-run and murder cases.

However, it could also be used to assist ICE, and that is all that matters. Councilman Kevin Flynn explained it is all about Trump’s election:

“We know that it can help solve crime. But I think since maybe Jan. 20 of this year, those concerns are greatly heightened and have a new reality about them.”

Council member Sarah Parady added:

“We’re living in an era where just this last week, actually, an executive order came out instructing the Department of Justice and the FBI to look for reasons to prosecute local elected officials and activists who they believe are, quote, unquote, obstructing ICE enforcement. This kind of surveillance technology is a gift if you have that kind of ill intent, and the federal government has that ill intent right now.”

Mayor Mike Johnston also stated that they need to halt these arrests because “today’s environment is much different than when the pilot began in early 2024, and there are new community concerns surrounding this technology.”

The police are obviously not happy but car thieves are thrilled.

If this seems utterly insane, keep in mind that this was a unanimous vote of the city council.