Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas will ban individuals and companies with ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) from purchasing land in the state under a law set to take effect on Sept. 1.

Gov. Greg Abbott announced on June 23 that he signed Senate Bill 17 into law, restricting the foreign ownership of residential property, agricultural land, mineral deposits, and water rights across Texas.

The legislation targets nations designated as national security threats by the Director of National Intelligence. Besides communist China, the current list includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea. It also grants the governor the authority to add more countries to the restricted list.

With the new law, Texas is joining a growing number of states that regulate foreign ownership of their land. From January 2023 to July 2024, a total of 22 states have enacted similar laws limiting or banning foreign ownership of land, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service released in August 2024.

State Sen. Lois Kolkhorst, who reintroduced SB 17 earlier in 2024, hailed the Texas measures as “the strongest national security bill that this nation has ever seen from any state.”

“I believe that, from the very bottom of my heart, we are protecting our land and our minerals,” the Republican senator said at a press conference on May 31 following the bill’s passage in the Texas Legislature.

“All of these are our resources that should never fall into the hands of adversarial nations.”

In November 2022, Kolkhorst first introduced the bill, which was killed in the state’s lower chamber at the time.

Under the soon-to-be-enacted law, people from the designated nations living in the United States legally are allowed to purchase residential property but only if those properties serve as their primary residences.

It restricts members of “the ruling political party or any subdivision of the ruling political party” in these nations from purchasing the state’s property. That means CCP members, for example, would not be able to buy land in Texas.

Individuals who act “as an agent or on behalf of a designated country” are also subject to the land purchase ban.

The law prohibits them from acquiring land and limits property leases to less than a year at a time.

The bill passed in the state Senate by a vote of 25–6 on May 30, a day after receiving approval from the House with an 85–57 vote.

Among the four targeted nations—which collectively hold less than 1 percent of total foreign-held agricultural land—investors from China own the most U.S. forest land and farmland at 277,336 acres, according to the Department of Agriculture’s most recent report.

Texas alone has 123,708 of those acres, making it the state with the largest Chinese holdings. It was followed by North Carolina with 44,263 acres and Missouri with 42,905 acres.

Nationwide, Iranian and Russian investors reported owning 3,030 acres and 11 acres, respectively, while there was no reported acreage held by North Koreans, according to the report released in December 2023.

State Rep. Cole Hefner, a Republican who carried SB 17 in the House, said that the new law will “prevent hostile foreign nations from buying up Texas land and exposing Texas to a significant and growing threat.”

“We cannot, we will not, allow oppressive regimes who actively seek to do us harm to seize control and dictate their terms over our economy, our supply chains, our daily lives, our critical infrastructure, or our food supply,” Hefner said at the May 31 press conference.

State Sen. Bryan Hughes told reporters that the bill was not about foreign people but was part of Texas’s efforts to stand up against threats from hostile foreign adversaries.

He pointed to the threats posed by transnational repression, saying that agents from foreign adversaries operate in Texas, going after dissidents and Americans who speak out against them.

“We love all people,” Hughes said. “We do not support hostile foreign governments that are very open about their designs on us, and we will not let them mess with Texas.”

Despite earlier reporting during Trump’s opening months in office to the contrary, the US President and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu now seem closer than ever. They are partners in war, and now apparently partners in looking out for each other in legal cases.

In something unprecedented, Trump has issued a statement being viewed as a brazen attempt to intervene in Israel’s judicial system, at a moment that a high court cross-examination of Netanyahu is set to resume after it was paused due to the judiciary operating in emergency mode during the war with Iran.

Trump wrote on Truth Social: “BREAKING NEWS… I was shocked to hear that the State of Israel, which has just had one of its Greatest Moments in History, and is strongly led by Bibi Netanyahu, is continuing its ridiculous Witch Hunt against their Great War Time Prime Minister!”

The lengthy post described that he and Netanyahu “just went through HELL together, fighting a very tough and brilliant longtime enemy of Israel, Iran, and Bibi could not have been better, sharper, or stronger in his LOVE for the incredible Holy Land.”

“Anybody else would have suffered losses, embarrassment, and chaos! Bibi Netanyahu was a WARRIOR, like perhaps no other Warrior in the History of Israel,” Trump claimed further. “The result was something that nobody thought was possible, a complete elimination of potentially one of the biggest and most powerful Nuclear Weapons anywhere in the World, and it was going to happen, SOON! We were fighting, literally, for the Survival of Israel, and there is nobody in Israel’s History that fought harder or more competently than Bibi Netanyahu.”

The Netanyahu trial goes back to 2020, and Trump further called the whole saga “politically motivated” and asserted that the prime minister been through a “Horror Show”.

“Such a WITCH HUNT, for a man who has given so much, is unthinkable to me,” Trump further wrote. “Bibi Netanyahu’s trial should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero, who has done so much for the State.”

The trial focuses on three corruption cases – including charges of fraud and breach of trust, as well as charges of bribery. The allegations range from illegally receiving expensive gifts based on political favors, to quid pro quo agreements with some Israeli media sources for more favorable coverage, to authorizing telecom-related regulatory decisions to benefit friends and allies.

Trump’s very strong words on the case have caused alarm in Israel due especially to how much foreign aid and military assistance Washington has historically given Israel.

Told @piersmorgan that Netanyahu was very upset about Trump forcing a ceasefire on him because after finally having succeeded in getting the US into war with Iran, he was hoping the US would keep attacking Iran for some time rather than cutting it short after only one attack. pic.twitter.com/XBQc662AfA

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) June 26, 2025

Such direct pressure by the sitting US president could cause judicial decision makers to soften their approach and thus impartiality, many fear. It also will certainly create unease among Netanyahu’s political opposition, to say the least.

Authored by Drew Bond via RealClearEnergy,

The last energy revolution that changed the world — natural gas fracking — happened in part thanks to the Department of Energy (DOE). Early R&D funding, support for horizontal drilling, and key public-private partnerships helped fracking get off the ground and turn America into an energy powerhouse.

Now, we are on the cusp of another energy revolution, this time focused on the clean technologies of advanced nuclear, geothermal, natural hydrogen, and fusion. Fortunately, the United States is rich in these energy resources. The challenge with these technologies isn’t a lack of supply; it’s the speed and scale at which we can bring this energy online. 

American innovators and entrepreneurs are ready to deliver solutions, but outdated bureaucracy and inefficiency within the DOE threaten to delay progress. With a leader like Secretary Chris Wright, who brings real-world experience from the private sector, the DOE has an opportunity to once again become a force multiplier for energy innovation — if it embraces smart, structural reforms.

Here’s where the DOE can start.

1. Streamline Contracting and Applications

The DOE’s current application and contracting process is burdensome and redundant. Companies often face unnecessary delays just trying to navigate paperwork, such as being required to secure community benefits agreements or labor partnerships before the technology in question is even commercially viable. To make matters worse, organizations must submit separate applications for each DOE program or office, even when pursuing similar goals.

The DOE can address this issue by standardizing applications across the department, eliminating duplicative requirements, and leveraging modern tools like AI to automate non-critical aspects of the process. These changes would increase efficiency, lower barriers to new entrants, and accelerate the introduction of transformative technologies to market.

2. Cut NEPA Red Tape — Where DOE Has Authority

While protecting the environment and holding polluters accountable is an essential role for the government, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has been weaponized to stall or block critical energy projects. While the DOE does not have full control over NEPA’s broader structure, and Congress should seriously consider repealing this outdated law, DOE does have discretion over how NEPA is applied to its programs and supported projects.

One key opportunity is for DOE to expand the use of categorical exclusions — designations for projects that do not significantly impact the environment and therefore do not require full-scale environmental assessments. This is especially important for new energy technologies that haven’t yet reached commercial scale or environmental risk.

DOE can also streamline internal review timelines, accelerate grant negotiations, and release funding as soon as projects meet agreed-upon milestones. These kinds of administrative reforms are entirely within DOE’s control and could make a real difference in the pace of deployment.

3. Focus on Acceleration, Not Picking Winners and Losers

DOE should not be in the business of picking technological winners and losers. The private sector is far better suited to determine what solutions work best in the real world. The federal government should not also be financing projects that can secure private financing. What the DOE should do, however, is utilize its considerable resources, such as the Loan Programs Office, to bridge funding gaps and accelerate promising technologies to market on a global scale.

This means supporting a diverse range of innovations — from next-generation nuclear to long-duration storage and advanced grid software — not because of ideological preferences, but because we need all of the above to meet growing demand. The key is to level the playing field, provide support where market gaps exist, and let the best technologies rise to the top based on merit and scalability.

4. Support Transparency and Talent

DOE should publicly track and report application processing times to hold itself accountable. Additionally, it should foster a culture of excellence by rewarding employees based on talent and performance, rather than just tenure. Reform should also include the ability to swiftly remove employees who consistently undercut the department’s mission of advancing U.S. energy leadership.

The next energy revolution won’t be unleashed because of a single reform. But together, these changes would transform the Department of Energy from a slow-moving bureaucracy into a dynamic catalyst for American energy innovation.

The private sector is ready. The resources are available. With the right reforms, DOE can help unlock the full potential of American energy, reasserting our leadership at a time when energy security, economic growth, and technological competitiveness depend on it. The time to act is now.

Drew Bond is the Co-Founder, President & CEO of C3 Solutions. 

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A new report from the head of the IRS’s Taxpayer Advocate Service shows that the agency has lost more than one-quarter of its workforce since President Donald Trump assumed office.

The overhaul is consistent with the administration’s effort to slim down the federal government, but it raises questions about the agency’s readiness for the 2026 tax season.

According to the June 25 report, the IRS workforce has dropped from 102,113 employees to 75,702 since January—a roughly 26 percent reduction. The majority of those departures came through voluntary exit programs rolled out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump administration initiative to shrink the federal workforce, boost bureaucratic efficiency, and reduce deficits.

Of the 26,411 employees who left the agency since Jan. 25, more than 17,500 took buyouts through the DOGE-related “fork in the road” resignation offer, formally known as the Deferred Resignation Program.

Another 1,475 exited through early retirement or voluntary separation incentives, while nearly 3,000 departed through standard attrition such as resignation, termination, or death.

National Taxpayer Advocate Erin M. Collins, who heads the Taxpayer Advocate Service, which produced the report, praised the IRS for delivering one of its smoothest filing seasons in recent memory this year. But she warned that the sharp reduction in personnel—particularly in areas such as taxpayer services, IT, and small business operations—could strain the agency in the year ahead.

“The 2025 filing season was one of the most successful filing seasons in recent memory,” Collins said in a statement. “But with the IRS workforce reduced by 26 [percent] and significant tax law changes on the horizon, there are risks to next year’s filing season. It is critical that the IRS begin to take steps now to prepare.”

The report noted that many of the agency’s most experienced leaders were among those who left, compounding operational challenges. Some key preparatory steps—such as hiring and training seasonal workers—had yet to begin as of mid-year, raising concerns about potential gaps when the filing season opens in January 2026.

The staffing reductions are part of a broader Trump administration push to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. A February executive order called for a “critical transformation” of the civil service and instructed agencies to root out what it described as “waste, bloat, and insularity.”

A subsequent memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget laid out plans for deep workforce cuts across non-defense agencies.

Critics Assail Downsizing

While proponents of the downsizing initiative argue that it will foster a more efficient and accountable federal bureaucracy, critics say the cuts could hollow out government services.

“The IRS is underfunded, understaffed, and underappreciated,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at a June 25 Capitol Hill briefing on the Trump administration’s IRS cuts.

Former IRS Commissioner John Koskinen also criticized the downsizing, calling it “nonsensical” to weaken the agency responsible for collecting revenue needed to run the government—particularly amid calls for deficit reduction.

The watchdog report also flagged potential upcoming budgetary pressures. The Trump administration’s fiscal 2026 budget proposal calls for a 20 percent cut to IRS appropriations, and a total reduction of 37 percent when accounting for the expiration of Inflation Reduction Act funds, the report noted.

“A reduction of that magnitude is likely to impact taxpayers and potentially the revenue collected,” Collins wrote.

Collins urged the administration to lift its hiring freeze and grant direct hiring authority so that the IRS can bring on essential staff in time to prepare for next year’s tax filing season. Without swift action, she warned, taxpayers could face longer wait times, service delays, and greater frustration.

Looking ahead more broadly, the administration’s fiscal blueprint envisions cutting a net 107,000 jobs across non-defense agencies next year—a more than 7 percent reduction relative to current staffing levels. The proposed cuts include both executive actions that can be implemented without legislation and broader proposals that require congressional approval.

Actual reductions may be even steeper. Several agencies, including the Department of Defense, have announced planned cuts that were not included in the June budget documents. The White House has acknowledged that the published staffing figures “may not reflect all of the management and administrative actions underway or planned in federal agencies.”

Some of the Trump administration’s workforce reduction efforts have been challenged in court. Judges have blocked implementation of certain cuts, including downsizing initiatives at the State Department and the Department of Education.

Meanwhile, the latest government jobs report, released on June 6, shows that, since January, the federal government workforce is down by 59,000 workers. The federal government employed about 3 million people as of November 2024, according to USAFacts.

Update (1100ET): Mexican President Sheinbaum has commented on the sanctions, denying any fraud and claiming the Mexican banking system is ‘sound’:

• *SHEINBAUM: NO EVIDENCE OF MONEY LAUNDERING IN MEXICAN BANKS

• *SHEINBAUM SAYS MEXICO ONLY FOUND ADMINISTRATIVE FLAWS IN BANKS

• *SHEINBAUM: MEXICO ASKED US TREASURY MONEY LAUNDERING EVIDENCE

• *SHEINBAUM: MEXICAN FINANCIAL SYSTEM SOUND, ACCUSED FIRMS SMALL

• *MEXICO TRANSFERS TO CHINA COS ‘NOT MONEY LAUNDERING’: SHEINBAUM

Just a coincidence?

*  *  *

As Naveen Athrappully detailed earlier via The Epoch Times, The Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) sanctioned three financial institutions based in Mexico for allegedly laundering money for cartels involved in the illegal trade of fentanyl, the Treasury said in a June 25 statement. The institutions are CIBanco S.A., Intercam Banco S.A., and Vector Casa de Bolsa S.A. de C.V.

CIBanco and Intercam are commercial banks with assets worth more than $7 billion and $4 billion, respectively. Vector is a brokerage company managing almost $11 billion in assets.

FinCEN has determined that the entities launder money in connection with illicit opioid trafficking, and have “collectively played a longstanding and vital role in laundering millions of dollars on behalf of Mexico-based cartels and facilitating payments for the procurement of precursor chemicals needed to produce fentanyl,” the statement said.

CIBanco facilitated illicit opioid trafficking by Mexican cartels such as Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), Beltran-Leyva Cartel, and Gulf Cartel. Intercam was linked to CJNG, and Vector with the Sinaloa Cartel and Gulf Cartel, said the statement.

FinCEN said that between 2021 and 2024, CIBanco processed more than $2.1 million in payments from Mexico-based companies to entities in China that shipped precursor chemicals to Mexico. Intercam processed over $1.5 million during the same period.

As for Vector, the institution processed more than $1 million between 2018 and 2023.

The sanctions prohibit financial institutions in the United States from engaging in the transmission of funds from or to CIBanco, Intercam, or Vector. The prohibition also applies to any account or convertible virtual currency address administered by the three institutions.

In a June 25 statement, CIBanco said it does not maintain illegal business relationships. The bank “reiterates its compliance with all guidelines established by the competent authorities,” it said.

“CIBanco maintains constant communication with the relevant Mexican and U.S. authorities and reaffirms its full willingness to cooperate,” it said.

Intercam said they “categorically deny” any links between the institution and illicit activity, specifically money laundering, according to a June 25 statement. The institution reiterated its “firm commitment to transparency and legality.”

In a June 25 statement, Vector said it “categorically rejects any accusation that compromises its institutional integrity.” The institution has operated under strict rules, auditing, and supervision of national financial authorities, it said.

Illicit Transactions

In a June 25 statement, Mexico’s Ministry of Finance and Public Credit said it had asked the U.S. Treasury for evidence of CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector having links to illicit activities that could be corroborated by Mexico’s Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) or the National Banking and Securities Commission. “However, no substantiating information was received,” it said.

“The only information provided by the Treasury Department that Mexico can verify contains data on some wire transfers made through the aforementioned financial institutions to legally incorporated Chinese companies. However, thousands of these transactions are made through Mexican financial institutions.”

“The UIF found transactions made to these Chinese companies by more than 300 Mexican companies through 10 Mexican financial institutions. This is because Mexico has thousands of regular transactions with legally incorporated Chinese companies, with annual trade totaling $139 billion,” according to the statement.

The ministry clarified that if it receives “conclusive information” proving that CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector engaged in illicit activities, it will “act to the fullest extent of the law.” However, the ministry has not received any such information to date, it added.

According to the June 25 Treasury statement, the sanction orders against the Mexican financial institutions were made pursuant to the Fentanyl Sanctions Act and the FEND Off Fentanyl Act.

The two Acts provide the Treasury with additional powers to target money laundering linked with the trafficking of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids. These are the first actions taken by FinCEN under the two Acts, according to the Treasury.

Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said that “financial facilitators like CIBanco, Intercam, and Vector are enabling the poisoning of countless Americans by moving money on behalf of cartels, making them vital cogs in the fentanyl supply chain.”

“Today’s actions affirm Treasury’s commitment to using all tools at our disposal to counter the threat posed by criminal and terrorist organizations trafficking fentanyl and other narcotics,” he said.

In a June 26 post on social media platform X, Bessent said both the United States and Mexico are committed to ensuring that financial systems have “strong anti-money laundering/countering the financing of terrorism controls.”

China’s Long Game

In an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan on June 6, FBI Director Kash Patel said that China’s plan was to weaken the United States over the long term using the fentanyl crisis.

The Chinese Communist Party did not make much money off the drug trade by supplying precursor chemicals. The plan is to “take out generations of young men and women” who could have taken on jobs such as a police officer, a soldier, or a teacher, he said.

“That’s what they [China] are doing, when you wipe out tens of thousands of Americans a year. It’s a long-term plan for them,” he said.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were an estimated 48,422 deaths in the country involving synthetic opioid fentanyl in 2024.

The Chinese communist regime’s ongoing supply of illegal drugs to the United States was one of the reasons stated by the Trump administration for imposing 20 percent additional tariffs on Chinese imports earlier this year.

Following a recent trade agreement, China has announced new controls for two fentanyl precursors.

In a move that has ignited fierce backlash, North Carolina lawmakers attempted a “gut and stuff.” By inserting a last-minute “de facto immunity provision” into an unrelated House bill, agrochemical giants like Monsanto-Bayer will be given a free pass from accountability for its products linked to cancer and infertility, depending on what happens next. 

A highly controversial policy, Monsanto-Bayer has been seeking state level labeling exemptions amid bankruptcy exploration, as the company faces over 67,000 lawsuits nationwide for its product Round Up.

Lawmakers are trying to slip a de facto immunity provision into another bill! Don’t let them subvert the democratic process by skipping testimony and debate!! Agrochemical Corporations do not need a liability shield! Take a moment and send an email to the house! Link in comments pic.twitter.com/6WPP9vvoWt

— Alexandra Muñoz (@amtoxicology) June 25, 2025

The revelation, brought to light by molecular toxicologist Dr. Alexandra Muñoz, set off alarm bells among health advocates and concerned citizens alike, who quickly lit-up the phone lines. 

They are at it again today! Call, Share, and demand chemical companies be held accountable. No Immunity https://t.co/v9DwZ4ABJm

— Shawn Hendrix (@TheShawnHendrix) June 25, 2025

In a bipartisan vote [21-13], the House voted “Nay” to the gut and stuff amendment, passing the bill without the immunity language after the committee reconvened yesterday morning. 

According to Muñoz, this tactic aimed to circumvent the democratic process by skipping critical testimony and debate. 

Due to the fact that the North Carolina Senate already passed SB 401 – a version of the House bill with the immunity language – the Senate will now be faced with striking the language from its version, or going into overtime. 

Unlike basketball, the legislative form of OT is called a Conference Committee. Composed of House and Senate leadership, both chambers could face-off over which form of the bill to adopt during the conference. 

Given the 50/50 odds of a conference, opponents of the bill are calling on Senate leadership to drop its unpopular fight for Monsanto-Bayer. 

Muñoz’s urgent call to action has mobilized constituents to flood legislative leadership with emails, as sources indicate a conference committee could be convened by the end of the week, unless the Senate agrees with the House. 

The stakes are high. Passing this bill would remove North Carolina residents’ right to sue for “failure to warn,” by asserting that federally regulated warning labels preempt state rights.

This type of legislative sleight of hand is part of a disturbing trend where industries seek to evade responsibility. Critics, like Dr. Meryl Nass, have pointed out the similarities to the 1986 National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program—another liability shield that’s created far-reaching consequences.

Meanwhile, Monsanto-Bayer is hard at work attempting to expand federal preemption laws in D.C. A move that critics argue will undermine both legislative and judicial integrity, prioritizing corporate interests over public welfare. 

As the battle lines are drawn, the outcome of this legislative tug-of-war could have profound implications for the health and safety of North Carolinians and beyond. 

The question remains: will the voices of the people prevail, or will the agrochemical lobbyists silence them once again?

It isn’t just rogue judges subverting the will of the people… The Republicans’ Big Beautiful Bill was dealt a major blow on Thursday after the Senate Parliamentrian gutted nine major provisions included in GOP efforts to cut $250 billion in Medicaid and other health care spending. 

Democrat parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough’s latest rulings include major pieces of Medicaid policy – including a plan to reduce federal expenses by cracking down on a state provider tax, which would have had a nine-figure impact on the bill. 

She also struck down;

• Immigrant Medicaid eligibility 
• Prohibiting Medicaid and Children’s health insurance (CHIP) from funding ‘gender affirming care’
• Restricting certain states from increasing taxes on providers
• Limiting noncitizen immigrants from qualifying for premium tax credits or cost-sharing reductions
• Disallowing premium tax credits during periods of Medicaid ineligibility due to immigrant status

The rulings couldn’t have come at a worse time for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and other GOP leaders – who are trying to carefully handle an internal revolt from members wary of the practical and political impacts of the Medicaid changes. 

Here’s more on the *nine* different health care provisions that the parl ruled against from Senate Finance Committee’s reconciliation text, per @SenateBudget pic.twitter.com/xWKxYIkh2r

— Laura Weiss (@LauraEWeiss16) June 26, 2025

Now Republicans have to try and rework the provider tax language to get it back in the Senate bill, Politico reports, citing two anonymous sources. 

“We’ll continue our work and find a solution to achieve the desired results,” said one of the people.

The second person described the parliamentarian’s cuts as “technical,” with some Republicans optimistic that they can make changes to the language that lets them keep the provisions. 

Unbelievable. What possible way can you claim that modifying Medicaid eligibility isn’t compliant with the Byrd rule? https://t.co/M4tHMUTNRp

— Tiana Lowe Doescher (@TianaTheFirst) June 26, 2025

Some Republicans are PISSED

“The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people,” Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL) posted on X. “Yet she holds veto power over legislation supported by millions of voters.”

.Steube called on Vice President JD Vance to ‘overrule the Parliamentarian and let the will of the people, not some staffer hiding behind Senate procedure, determine the future of this country.’

How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill?

The Senate Parliamentarian is not elected. She is not accountable to the American people. Yet she… https://t.co/y2loBAMENc

— Congressman Greg Steube (@RepGregSteube) June 26, 2025

Ignore her?

The Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan advisor who interprets the Senate’s rules, including the Byrd Rule, which limits what can be included in reconciliation bills. Their guidance is not legally binding – it’s advisory, but traditionally followed to maintain Senate norms.

Senate Republicans can ‘ignore’ her rulings in two ways; 

Option 1: The Presiding Officer Overrules

• The presiding officer of the Senate, Vice President JD Vance, can choose to ignore the parliamentarian’s advice and rule in favor of including the provision.

• This is extremely unusual. If it happens:

  • Any senator can challenge the ruling, triggering a vote on whether to uphold it.

  • If a simple majority supports the override, the ruling stands — effectively overruling the parliamentarian.

Option 2: Fire or Replace the Parliamentarian

• The Senate Majority Leader John Thune could request a different parliamentarian or pressure the presiding officer to disregard the current one’s rulings.

• This happened once before:

  In 2001, the Republican-controlled Senate replaced Parliamentarian Robert Dove after disagreements over tax cuts.

Needless to say, America’s gatekeepers are hard at work… 

By Elwin de Groot, head of macro strategy at Rabobank

European bond yields inched up by several basis points whilst equity markets took a breather following the oil-price inspired rebound as the truce between Iran and Israel appeared to hold. Along with a 3bp decline in US Treasury yields, the dollar index slipped to its lowest level in more than three years, as President Trump is considering to announce his pick for the next Fed Chairman earlier than planned.

The Wall Street Journal writes this could be already in September or October, so well ahead of the official end to Powell’s term, which still has some eleven months to run. Even as Powell is likely to resist pressures to cut rates (quickly), an early nomination could undercut his ability to steer rates. Once his successor is known, markets will split their attention between Powell and the views of the next Fed chair. And whomever Trump picks, they are likely to be more dovish than Powell. Hence the distinct bend in the OIS forward curve in recent months with markets pricing in a higher probability of significant rate cuts over the course of 2026.

Other than that, a light data calendar on both sides of the Atlantic left market participants largely bound to the geopolitical news flow, in particular the NATO summit. To some extent, the latter even stole the show from the World Economic Forum, taking place in Tianjin, China this week.

After all the preparations and last-minute haggling between members, there was little doubt that the NATO summit was going to be successful. And, indeed, from a zoomed-out perspective, it was a success. Historic, even, by some standards. In its statement, NATO members reaffirmed their “[…] ironclad commitment to collective defence as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – that an attack on one is an attack on all.” Although Trump had earlier cast fresh doubts whether the US wholeheartedly support the Article, he later said that the US is with NATO “all the way”. And NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte went out of his way to underscore the US’ commitment in the press conference.

But the key achievement of the summit was the commitment by ‘Allies’ (a wording used instead of ‘NATO Members’ or ‘We’ to keep Spain on board),  to ”invest 5% of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence-and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations […]” As expected this 5% of GDP should be broken down to at least 3.5% of GDP committed to ‘core defence requirements’ to meet NATO capability targets and up to 1.5% of GDP annually to, protect critical infrastructure, networks, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, unleash innovation, and strengthen the NATO defence industrial base.

As these broader goals had already been well-telegraphed, this explains the relatively muted reaction of European bond markets. But when you think of it, the relatively limited response in recent months to the swelling chorus of “more defence spending” is somewhat remarkable. Remember we had the significant jump in German Bund yields earlier in March when Germany announced its U-turn on defence and infrastructure spending and the interpretation of its debt-brake. But since that 50bp jump in only a few days, yields have come back down and are just 10bp higher than before that momentous decision.

And now – in essence – we have something that looks like a coordinated European-wide massive spending impulse (plus Canada etc.) lasting for many years. And bond investors seem to be shrugging. Yes, it will be phased-in, and yes, it remains to be seen whether members will stick to their plan. But not doing so seems the surest way of losing the US’s commitment to Article 5. No doubt there will be some shirking and foot-dragging, but the broader picture is that there is now a broad-based commitment. Of note: even Belgian Prime Minister De Wever, who had positioned himself as a ‘holdout’, had to swallow the bitter pill, as he acknowledged that 3.5% is a realistic figure and that NATO’s European member states must recognise that “our long break from history is over and we must take responsibility.” And Trump’s displeasure with the Spanish position indicates that we can be sure that peer pressure will be used to keep everyone in line. 

So, again, moving from around 2% of GDP to at least 3.5% or even 5% structurally is not a small thing. To put it in perspective, the Eurozone’s structural (cyclically-adjusted) government balance, which is projected at roughly -3% for 2025 by the European Commission, has – since the Eurozone’s existence – never been higher than -0.8% (2018) and never lower than -5.1% (2010, in the midst of the sovereign debt crisis). In other words, this is going to require a lot of budgetary and financial acrobatics to make it work. Trying to find savings in other government spending items? Sure. Trying to raise some revenues here and there? Sure. But ultimately it would seem hard to avoid a significant increase in the deficit and hence issuance of government debt.

So, if you want to approach this from a more traditional viewpoint, then please look at the scenario’s we devised here. We basically assumed that in the coming years debt issuance will play a significant role, which is to be followed at some stage by fiscal consolidation. But the key message is also that to get sufficient ‘bang for the buck’, the design, execution and strategic patience will be the keys to success (or failure!) of these defense spending plans. That means leaving sufficient room for the European industrial complex to benefit from this spending, ensuring a coordinated approach (so that not everyone’s going to produce drones), make innovation with a significant ramp-up in defense R&D a key objective and ensure simplification of administrative processes, etc.

But, will there be sufficient (political) will in the future to consolidate after a debt binge? Or, if member states want to do this in a (budgetary) neutral way, how can they ensure that the economy doesn’t break down before they reach their strategic objective? Or how can Europe ensure that everyone meets their objective, and not just the countries with relatively sound debt-to-GDP ratios and the fiscal space (i.e. Germany)? So if you think that, somehow, this is not going to work then need to start thinking more out-of-the-box to ensure that funding will flow to the right sectors, that the financial burden is fairly distributed, and that these long-term security and defence objectives are ultimately reached without blowing up bond markets. There are no straightforward answers there, but the only suggestion I’d make is that at least we start thinking about this rather than just assuming that the current budgetary/financial framework we operate under can handle all this.

Reps. James Comer (R-Ky.), Bryan Steil (R-Wisc.), and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)—who chair the House committees probing shady Democratic fundraising giant ActBlue—have issued a subpoena to former executive Alyssa Twomey, ordering her to testify on the platform’s handling of fraud prevention. The subpoena follows multiple attempts to obtain her voluntary cooperation since March.

It is important to note from the subpoena letter to Twomey that House Republicans from the Committees on House Administration, Judiciary, and Oversight are leading the investigation into the highly questionable online donation platform, which may have received foreign and fraudulent contributions for political fundraising purposes.

“In light of allegations that online fundraising platforms that serve as conduits for political donations have accepted fraudulent donations from domestic and foreign sources, the Committees are conducting oversight to inform potential legislative reforms,” Comer and the other lawmakers wrote in the letter. 

Key points from the letter:

• Twomey’s Role: As ActBlue’s former VP of Customer Service, she oversaw the fraud-prevention team during a period when the platform allegedly weakened fraud controls despite knowing about vulnerabilities.

• Committee Findings: Internal documents show ActBlue prioritized accepting donations over fraud detection, ignored red flags from foreign actors, and had internal assessments acknowledging potential for abuse.

• Justification for Subpoena: The committees rejected arguments that the DOJ’s parallel investigation justified refusal to testify. They emphasized that Congress has independent constitutional oversight authority even amid executive investigations.

• Rebuttal to Legal Claims: The GOP committees dismissed ActBlue’s constitutional defenses (First Amendment, Equal Protection) as unfounded and asserted that legislative oversight is being conducted to inform potential campaign

Read Full Subpoena Letter to Alyssa Twomey (ActBlue)

According to Elon Musk in March—when rogue leftist NGOs were targeting Tesla—he stated: “ActBlue is currently under investigation for allowing foreign and illegal donations in criminal violation of campaign finance regulations. This week, seven ActBlue senior officials resigned, including the associate general counsel.”

An investigation has found 5 ActBlue-funded groups responsible for Tesla “protests”: Troublemakers, Disruption Project, Rise & Resist, Indivisible Project and Democratic Socialists of America.

ActBlue funders include George Soros, Reid Hoffman, Herbert Sandler, Patricia Bauman,…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 8, 2025

Related:

• Congressional Probe Into Political Fundraising Platform ActBlue Finds Potential “Criminal Activity”

• Coalition Of 19 GOP AGs Launch Investigation Into ActBlue Over Money Laundering Allegations

• “Bad Actors”: Texas Demands FEC Action Over ‘Suspicious Donations’ To Democrats Through ActBlue

• Vandalism And Attacks On Tesla Accelerate As Musk Says ActBlue, Soros To Blame

• Trump To Go After Democrat Fundraising Juggernaut ActBlue In Presidential Memorandum: Report

• Rep. Jasmine Crockett Faces FEC Investigation Over Suspicious Act Blue Donations

Separate but likely connected in some way, the FBI has launched an investigation into the dark-money-funded NGOs that transformed parts of Los Angeles into a warzone earlier this month.

Dark-Money Network Funneled Millions Into ‘No Kings’ Nationwide Color Revolution Operation | ZeroHedge https://t.co/gaRzUwdeG5

— Peter Schweizer (@peterschweizer) June 14, 2025

Federal investigators are accelerating efforts to map the command-and-control structures of the rogue Democratic Party. A primary focus includes identifying whether funds—possibly originating from adversarial foreign actors (see here)—were funneled through digital donation platforms to support not only political campaigns but also unrest in city streets. 

Following last month’s collapse (-6.3% MoM), analysts expected May pending home sales to bounce very modestly (+0.1% MoM).

New home sales plunged, existing home sales ticked up very modestly, and so pending home sales breaks the tie with a 1.8% MoM increase…

Source: Bloomberg

That modest rebound (though better than expected) dragged the YoY change in pending home sales up to just a 0.34% decline, but the index remains near record lows…

Source: Bloomberg

Signings picked up in all four US regions, most notably in the West, which rose by the most since December 2023.

NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun attributed May’s rise to resilience in the US labor market, with wage gains outpacing home price appreciation.

However, “mortgage rate fluctuations are the primary driver of homebuying decisions and impact housing affordability more than wage gains,” Yun said in a prepared statement.

The supply of existing homes for sale has reached an almost five-year high, as more people list their homes for sale, but the extra inventory isn’t yet pushing prices down.

Source: Bloomberg

Pending-homes sales tend to be a leading indicator for previously owned homes, as houses typically go under contract a month or two before they’re sold.