In the first operation of its kind in Florida, authorities have located over two dozen missing children during a multi-day rescue mission in Northeast Florida, according to Local 12.

The children, aged 7 to 17, had been missing from 10 days to more than a year. Over 30 local, state, and federal agencies participated in the joint effort.

Kevin Branzetti, CEO of the National Child Protection Taskforce, stressed the importance of follow-up care: “Finding the children is the first stage, but somebody has to listen to them and help them,” he told WFOX.

Branzetti also emphasized the long-term impact of the effort: “What’s occurring here isn’t just protecting these kids. It’s saving generations to come,” he said to WJAX.

Al Rollins, also with the taskforce, noted the emotional toll many children faced:
“In some cases, these kids were waiting for someone to show that they cared about them and show that they were looking for them,” he told WJAX.

Local 12 reports that Operation Light Shine, which supported the effort, posted on Instagram that “countless lives [were] forever changed” and called the week’s events “extraordinary.”

Clay County Sheriff’s Office representative Ron Lendvay explained that detectives brought their toughest unsolved cases to the operation:
“We all know that when kids run away, they’re either running to something or they’re running from something,” he said. “And what the intercept taskforce does is we go after those to give them something to run to or pull them away from their families.”

Each case is now being reviewed to determine whether human or sex trafficking was involved.

Authored by ‘Cynical Publius’ via American Greatness,

As the dust and smoke settle over Iran’s devastated nuclear weapons program, President Donald Trump’s method of waging war is coming into focus.

We had hints of what I call the “Trump Doctrine” in his first term as he annihilated ISIS in Syria, but the two-decade war in Afghanistan that he had inherited initially obscured what has now become a coherent doctrine. In his second term, the freedom of navigation attacks against Yemen’s Houthis were once again a hint of Trump’s way of war, but Saturday’s attack on Iran—and the events leading up to it—tell us much about the deliberate and precise manner in which Trump seeks to conduct American wars. Similar to (but different from) the famous “Powell Doctrine” promulgated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell (more on that later), the Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of a businessman serving his stockholders. Explained another way, the Trump Doctrine is the “Businessman’s Way of War.”

To preview succinctly, the Trump Doctrine consists of a series of business-like, iterative steps for all uses of American military force, and it performs as follows:

1. Identify America’s national interest.

2. Bargain with the prospective enemy.

3. If/when negotiations fail, conceal & misdirect.

4. Strike with precision and overwhelming force.

5. Achieve submission.

6. Bargain again (from a position of complete strength) with the defeated enemy.

I’ll now examine each of these escalating steps in detail.

“IDENTIFY AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST.”

This first point is key in understanding the Trump Doctrine and how it differs from the Powell Doctrine. Both the Trump Doctrine and the Powell Doctrine focus on war as only being necessary when a vital American national interest is at stake, but the definition of that “interest” differs rather dramatically between the two doctrines. Whereas the Powell Doctrine allows for amorphous goals such as exporting democracy, the Trump Doctrine takes a fundamentally different approach—a businessman’s approach.

You see, Donald Trump, a man whose entire life until 2016 was focused on winning in business, does not view himself as President of a nation so much as he views himself as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of a very large business, and that business is the United States of America. As CEO and Chairman, he knows he has a fiduciary duty to his stockholders. (You, me, and every other American are his stockholders.) The company Trump leads is not a non-profit—his company has no purpose other than to profit the stockholders. Regime change, spreading democracy, and trying to implement American concepts of liberty are the altruistic purposes of a tax-free, non-profit entity. But Trump sees America as a for-profit, and no actions will be taken for any reason other than to profit the American stockholders, and ending the nuclear capability of an Iranian regime of medieval theocrats greatly serves that purpose.

“BARGAIN WITH THE PROSPECTIVE ENEMY.”

Donald Trump will never expend American blood and treasure when a deal can be made first. Unlike so many of his predecessors, he does not care much about the moral fiber of America’s prospective enemies; he only cares about benefiting his American stockholders. Thus, when he offered the crazed theocrats ruling Iran a chance to bargain, he meant it. Trump does not care how much the mullahs punish their own citizens; he only cares about his fiduciary duties to his stockholders. Had the mullahs decided to bring their nation to the nuclear negotiating table in good faith, no B-2 bombers would have flown over Iraq this past weekend.

“IF/WHEN NEGOTIATIONS FAIL, CONCEAL & MISDIRECT.”

Trump gave the mullahs a chance to bargain. They declined. Think about this in the same way as when a large, profitable public company seeks to buy a weaker, distressed private company by way of merger. The first step is to offer a deal that benefits both parties. That’s what good businessmen do. But when the weaker company refuses to strike a deal that is in its best interest, the CEO of the stronger company starts to plan a hostile takeover while hiding his intent, and that’s just what Trump did with Iran.

When Google wants to buy a hot, new artificial intelligence start-up, it does not tip its intent off to Apple, and in fact will publicly pretend it has no interest at all in buying the distressed target company.

Trump employed a similar strategy as he engaged in what is now obviously a deception plan, where Trump and Netanyahu publicly pretended they were at odds. Even at the last minute—while Pentagon OPSEC was airtight—the public message was that Air Force B-2s were headed to Guam, but that was only a deception plan to obscure their actual flight plan from Missouri. Business is often like war, except without actual bloodshed. CEO Trump knows this, and made the same deception play in Iran as he would in forcing the sale of a distressed casino to one of his real estate ventures.

“STRIKE WITH PRECISION AND OVERWHELMING FORCE.”

Like the Powell Doctrine, the Trump Doctrine calls for the total commitment of America’s most lethal capabilities in an overwhelming manner. Like the large public company bringing all of its financial assets and influence to bear against a distressed merger target running from an undesired acquisition, Trump employed never-before-used Massive Ordnance Penetrators, delivered by our untrackable B-2 bombers, with an aerial corridor opened by Navy and Air Force stealth aircraft, while sub-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles took out targets that did not need the deep underground attack of the MOPs. Overwhelming military force is the way to defeat America’s enemies, just as overwhelming financial capabilities and business strategies ensure a powerful company controls the market against its competitors.

“ACHIEVE SUBMISSION.”

This is where the Trump Doctrine deviates most significantly from the Powell Doctrine. The lynchpin of the Powell Doctrine is achieving an “exit strategy.” An “exit strategy” is amorphous, and the enemy gets a vote. What was our exit strategy in Afghanistan? Tribal leaders who finally decided a democracy and personal liberty were the way to govern Afghanistan? Was the exit strategy in Iraq a sort of multi-ethnic republic with a constitution like our own? These goals were wishful thinking and led to 20+ years of useless, endless wars. President Trump sees “exit strategies” differently—he sees them as complete and total submission of the enemy.

To borrow a term from popular culture, Trump demands our foes “bend the knee,” and he will settle for nothing less.

Like the businessman he is, Trump expects his competitors to submit to his company’s will or cease to exist. As Trump said in his speech last Saturday night, “There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.

This is not an “exit strategy.” This is a demand for complete and total submission. Importantly, Trump planned our attacks on Iran’s nuclear capabilities realizing that total submission was possible, and he would never have launched the attacks if total submission was not on the menu. That is a sea change from our recent history of complex geopolitical “exit strategies.” Trump’s exit strategy is simply complete and total submission, and nothing less. His stockholders deserve as much.

“BARGAIN AGAIN (FROM A POSITION OF COMPLETE STRENGTH) WITH THE DEFEATED ENEMY.”

This is another area that is separate and distinct from the Powell Doctrine, and from all American wars since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Like the businessman he is, Trump sees war as a means to force our enemies to the negotiating table to give us what we want. Democracy? LGBTQ+ rights? Capitalism? Trump does not care. He only cares about what tangibly benefits his stockholders. When Trump says, “But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill,” he implies that negotiations can create peace. The B-2 strikes also serve to bring the mullahs to the negotiating table. If they acquiesce, they survive. If they do not, they die.

Additionally, Trump sees the deployment of U.S. forces as creating second- and third-order effects. Did China get the message? Will Russia stop giving arms to Iran if we agree to stop arming Ukraine? Every action Trump takes has deep meaning, and often outside the obvious scope of military objectives. This, too, is a businessman’s approach to war, and differs greatly from the standards of other recent presidents. If an action can influence your company’s competitors to act in your best interest, that is an action that must be taken.

At some point, every American enemy will realize that you must give Donald Trump what he wants, or he will destroy you. Military force as a negotiating tool is a new concept in American warfare, and I like it.

The Trump Doctrine provides for six steps to a new way of war. The Spanish-American War was the last war America ever fought for any reason other than to benefit the stockholders. Woodrow Wilson brought America into World War I to make the world “Safe for Democracy,” and for over a century, that has been America’s guiding wartime light. Yes, that was necessary and proper in World War II, but as a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know that most of the world today does not want democracy, and wasting American lives to achieve such an objective is futile. I vastly prefer a war that benefits America’s stockholders, and hopefully, all future presidents will know that the Trump Doctrine is the best method of serving America’s national interests.

Thank you, President Trump, for realigning America’s military mission into something that best serves the American people.

Cynical Publius is the nom de plume of a retired U.S. Army colonel and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, who is now a practicing mergers and acquisitions corporate law attorney. He believes the confluence of his experiences fighting wars and fighting business acquisitions has shown him Donald Trump’s way of war. You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

As rents skyrocket and the cost of living keeps climbing, a new study from Highland Cabinetry aims to answer a simple but critical question: are America’s most expensive cities actually worth it? Spoiler: not really.

The study analyzed a wide range of metrics — including housing costs, income, safety, traffic, pollution, and unemployment — using data from sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Zillow. The goal? To identify the cities where people are paying a premium and getting a whole lot of hassle in return.

Newark, NJ claimed the dubious honor of being the most overpriced city in the U.S., earning a perfect — and in this case, perfectly awful — score of 100, according to Highland Cabinetry. 

Living here will cost you over $5,100 a month, and for what? A safety index barely above 24, one of the worst in the country. Median household income is a modest $53,818, far below cities with similar costs. If you want the luxury of paying big-city prices for small-city problems, Newark’s got you covered.

Coming in hot at number two is New York City, which scored 98.17. It has the highest real estate price tag in the country — a staggering $18,402 per square foot in the city center. But with its famously clogged streets, questionable safety (index: 49.16), and a median income lower than in L.A. or D.C., you’re not exactly getting what you pay for. As the report shows, “Cost of living alone doesn’t define the value of a city.”

Los Angeles lands third with a score of 96.33. It boasts the worst traffic of any city in the study (index: 312.53), paired with high pollution and $7,500-a-square-foot housing. Sure, the average income is decent, but residents are choking on smog and spending hours stuck in gridlock.

At number four is Detroit, which proves that even cheaper real estate — a mere $1,067 per square foot — can’t save a city from this list. The city struggles with low safety (index: 26.86), bottom-of-the-barrel incomes ($38,080), and significant unemployment. It scores 94.5, mostly for failing to offer value even at lower prices.

Wilmington, DE rounds out the top five. With housing at over $3,000 per square foot and incomes hovering just above $50K, residents are paying luxury prices for a middle-tier lifestyle. The city scores 92.67, weighed down by high costs and underwhelming returns.

The Highland Cabinetry study shows that Washington, D.C. comes in at number six, scoring 90.83. It’s the most expensive city on the list for overall living costs — nearly $6,800 a month — but offers underwhelming safety (index: 39.86) and a daily grind of traffic and pollution. Even with six-figure average incomes, the experience doesn’t exactly scream “value.”

Chicago is next at number seven. With a score of 89, the Windy City offers decent earnings ($74,474) but drags itself down with poor safety, a 5.3% unemployment rate — the worst on the list — and the kind of expenses that make you question whether deep-dish pizza is worth it.

Houston takes the eighth spot, scoring 87.17. While more affordable than many of its peers, its air quality is poor, incomes are low ($41,142), and safety isn’t much to brag about. It’s the classic case of lower costs not necessarily equaling better living.

At number nine is San Francisco, where the dream of tech riches collides with reality. With housing prices over $11,000 per square foot and sky-high monthly expenses, the city scores just 85.33. Despite high incomes, residents deal with heavy traffic, mediocre safety, and significant pollution. In short: you’ll pay a lot, and you’ll suffer plenty.

Finally, Miami rounds out the list at number ten with a score of 83.5. While its safety and air quality beat many cities higher on the list, incomes don’t stretch nearly far enough to justify the $4,100+ monthly costs. Fun in the sun comes at a price — and for many, it’s too steep.

As a spokesperson for Highland Cabinetry put it: “Cost of living alone doesn’t define the value of a city. What our data shows is that several high-cost urban areas come with serious trade-offs, whether it’s long commutes, safety issues, or environmental stress. For many residents, the price tag isn’t the only consideration — it’s what that money gets you. And in many cases, the return on investment just isn’t there.”

Update(2200ET): The ceasefire is going to be shaky and likely difficult to maintain given that right up until the very moment it is to go into effect Tehran was on the receiving end of very intense Israeli warplane attacks. And Iran’s Foreign Minister too said Iran hit back overnight:

“The military operations of our powerful Armed Forces to punish Israel for its aggression continued until the very last minute, at 4am. Together with all Iranians, I thank our brave Armed Forces who remain ready to defend our dear country until their last drop of blood, and who responded to any attack by the enemy until the very last minute,” said FM Araghchi on X.

IRANIAN TELEVISION: ISRAEL ASSASSINATED NUCLEAR SCIENTIST MOHAMMAD REZA SIDDIQI IN ITS RECENT ATTACKS

But shortly before that above latest statement, there was this by the top Iranian diplomat:

What Tehran was looking like overnight, right up to ceasefire zero hour:

Tehran moments ago: pic.twitter.com/Gq0RUdMVoo

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 24, 2025

It’s anything but certain whether it will hold, but likely the White House is putting pressure on Tel Aviv to at least play nice for now, so Trump can take his ‘victory lap’ and declare mission accomplished. And yet, the status of Iran’s uranium enrichment stockpile is unknown.

The status of the ceasefire itself may not become clear until the daylight hours…

The ceasefire between Iran and Israel may be voided, as Israel is using the final 30 minutes before it takes effect to assassinate Iranian leadership and rain fire down on Tehran.

If the attacks do not stop by 3:30 AM Tel Aviv time, Israel will have already violated the… pic.twitter.com/TgIeyg91Qg

— AF Post (@AFpost) June 24, 2025

* * * 

Update: Fox is reporting, “President Trump spoke with Qatar’s Emir and informed him the U.S. got Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Iran. The President asked Qatar to help persuade Iran to do the same, following that Vice President Vance coordinated with Qatar’s Prime Minister on the details. This effort proved successful and, following discussions with the Qatari PM, the Iranians agreed. The deal was coordinated at the highest level by the President and Vice President and the Qatari Emir and Prime minister directly.” 

“Despite having been attacked just hours earlier, the Qataris set aside their grievances and prioritized regional security to get the deal done,” this source added.

Reuters is reporting that Iran has agreed to the ceasefire, which at the very least will provide a respite to the tit-for-tat missiles. More from Reuters:

• Qatar Brokered Iran’s Ceasefire Deal After U.S. Request
• Qatari PM secured Tehran’s approval following Trump’s outreach to Emir after Iran’s strike on U.S. base.
• Doha played key role in halting Israel-Iran conflict

* * *

Update: Shortly after 6pm, futures jumped and oil slumped even more in one of its biggest intraday reversals on record, after Trump announced on his Truth Social account that Iran and Israel had “fully agreed” to a “Complete and Total ceasefire” which will takes place at approximately midnight ET, “when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions“, and will last for 12 hours, at which time Trump says that “War will be considered, ENDED!”

The president adds that “on the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, “THE 12 DAY WAR.” This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn’t, and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD!”

The problem for now, however, is that the “fully-agreed upon ceasefire” announcement is news to Iran, with Al-Mayadeen reporting that “there is no confirmation from official Iranian sources regarding Trump’s talk of a ceasefire”

إيران: مراسل الميادين: لا يوجد تأكيد من مصادر رسمية إيرانية بشأن كلام ترامب عن وقف لإطلاق النار#الميادين pic.twitter.com/xvDJud1bHN

— قناة الميادين (@AlMayadeenNews) June 23, 2025

Others only add to the confusion…

#Iran’s mission to the United Nations declined to comment on whether it had received a ceasefire proposal from the United States or whether #Tehran had accepted it — ISNA

— Barzan Sadiq (@BarzanSadiq) June 23, 2025

… with CNN noting that Iran has not received any ceasefire proposal…

… and Iran’s semi-official Mehr News going so fast as to claim that “the Zionist regime carried out attacks on Iran, Trump spread his delusions and announced an imaginary ceasefire between Iran and the United States.“

Yet not all the subsequent information is negative: according to Reuters, the US appears to be backchanneling with Qatar, which has been asked for help to persuade Iran to agree after Israel had already agreed, and also adds that Iran had reportedly secured an agreement to a ceasfire. 

• TRUMP AND VP VANCE DISCUSSED ISRAEL-IRAN CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL WITH QATAR’S EMIR AFTER IRANIAN ATTACKS ON AIRBASE IN QATAR ON MONDAY –OFFICIAL BRIEFED ON NEGOTIATIONS TO REUTERS
• TRUMP TOLD EMIR THAT ISRAEL HAD AGREED TO CEASEFIRE AND ASKED FOR QATARI HELP TO PERSUADE IRAN TO ALSO AGREE –OFFICIAL BRIEFED TO REUTERS
• QATAR’S PRIME MINISTER SECURED IRAN’S AGREEMENT TO U.S. CEASEFIRE PROPOSAL IN CALL WITH TEHRAN -OFFICIAL BRIEFED TO REUTERS

And now we wait to see just who has agreed to what. 

* * *

Summary: The mainstream media and US officials are collectively reporting it’s all over folks – and there’s currently a surprisingly open level of acknowledgement that this ‘retaliation’ on US bases was telegraphed and even coordinated between Iran and Qatar (and that yes, the US knew about it). Tehran is saying the same number of missiles were used in the short-lived assault as were used by US bombers against its nuclear facilities.

“Iran’s missile attack on a US air base in Qatar was telegraphed well in advance, suggesting Tehran intended a symbolic show of force while offering a way to de-escalate after US airstrikes over the weekend,” Bloomberg is reporting. And CNN is currently even saying (based on its correspondent on the ground) that the skies over Tehran have grown quiet, after many days of constant strike waves by Israeli warplanes. The US military is saying all missiles were intercepted over Qatar. Airspace over Bahrain, Kuwait, and Dubai have already been reopened. 

Certainly markets have reacted consistent to this off-ramp narrative as well, as if it was all baked in: “One official with knowledge of Western intelligence assessments said the attack was a typical example of an ‘off-ramp’ escalation and warned it was more difficult to understand whether — and at what point — Israel would stop its own military activities in the region,” Bloomberg continues. The same report cites Jonathan Panikoff, a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East, who points to the obvious: “It feels choreographed and intentional. The Iranians get to tell their population they struck a mighty blow against the US, even if they didn’t, and Trump has the room now to decide not to retaliate.”

The Trump White House is now signaling it currently has no plans to launch a ‘retaliation’ strike in the wake of today’s Iranian attacks on US assets in the Gulf. Most reports are claiming that no missiles actually struck the ground at a US base, but it could be that this information will get suppressed regardless. No deaths or injuries have been reported. Trump’s statement in the aftermath ‘thanking’ Iran, ironically enough…

President Trump is essentially saying ‘mission accomplished’ and has declared that the three nuclear facilities struck by US bombers over the weekend were totally destroyed. But the big questions remain:

1) Will Netanyahu and the Israelis play ball with the ‘off-ramp’ opportunity?

2) Most importantly, where is the estimated 400kg of Iran’s enriched uranium now?

Iran has two choices;
1. Become Libya
2. Become North Korea

— ADAM (@AdameMedia) June 22, 2025

To some degree, more ‘known unknowns’ (cue Rumsfeld) have been created in the wake of Trump’s alleged destruction of Iran’s enrichment facilities. Perhaps the Iranians will now hasten to begin the actual secretive nuclear bomb program?

* * *

Update(1335ET): NY Times is reporting that advanced notice was given, which appears confirmation that plans of the ‘retaliation’ attack were leaked beforehand and was in many ways telegraphed publicly.

“Iran coordinated the attacks on the American airbase in Qatar with Qatar officials and gave advanced notice that attacks were coming to minimize casualties, according to three Iranian officials familiar with the plans,” per the NY Times’ reporting.

War theater? Or just one big test of US-supplied anti-air defense hardware? One regional journalist and pundit writes:

So far this is looking like the response we got in 2020 in response to the killing of Qassem Soleimani. A telegraphed attack on US base that did not result in fatalities but is “face saving” for the Iranian regime.

Some are claiming missile impact on some targets, which would indeed be a very serious development. But Qatar’s Al-Arabi is saying there were no Iranian missile attacks on Iraq’s Ain al-Assad base, which hosts significant US forces.

CONFIRMED IMPACTS made at US al-Udeid airbase in Qatar — Al-Mayadeen citing IRGC

Onlookers observe impacts as smoke reportedly rises from site — Al-Quds news footage pic.twitter.com/I7nl8krTkZ

— RT (@RT_com) June 23, 2025

And meanwhile markets seem to be taking this all in as a bit of staged war theater…

Some odd trading behavior to say the least, seemingly indicating markets aren’t buying the ‘spectacle’ thus far…

Oil knows? 

Below: Oil at moment when Iran launched the first missiles…

* * *

Update(1242ET): The Iranian response appears to have begun, as it’s raining missiles over Doha, Qatar. AFP journalists are reporting explosions over Doha, and Reuters has also cited witnesses to the blasts.

Axios is reporting that Iran has launched six missiles toward American bases in Qatar. “Iranian missiles were launched targeting US bases in Qatar and Iraq,” according to JPost’s Amichai Stein. i24News is reporting that “at least 10 missiles were fired at Qatar.”

• IRAN LAUNCHES MISSILE STRIKE AT US AIR BASE IN QATAR: TASNIM
• UAE AIRSPACE IS CLOSED: FOX NEWS
• AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM ACTIVATED OVER US AIN AL-ASSAD AIRBASE IN IRAQ ON ATTACK FEARS
• IRAN LAUNCHES MISSILES AT US BASES IN QATAR, IRAQ AND KUWAIT
• ALARMS HAVE BEEN REPORTED AT ALI AL SALEM AIR BASE IN KUWAIT
• BAHRAIN URGES CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS TO GO TO SAFE PLACE
• IRAN SAYS ITS ATTACK WAS FAR FROM QATAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
• Trump in Situation Room with Defense Secretary, Joint Chiefs — CNBC
• U.S. military jets are currently scrambling from bases in Saudi Arabia: Report
• Iranian military statement: we targeted the Al-Udeid Base in Qatar with ‘devastating and powerful’ missile attack.

Anti-air defenses active over the Gulf:

WILD FOOTAGE 🔴🔴

Video shows air defenses intercepting incoming Iranian missiles over Qatar.

Iran is officially striking the United States of America pic.twitter.com/lc3fcLSoA3

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 23, 2025

Doha, Qatar NOW pic.twitter.com/fJmWpZAvfX

— Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) June 23, 2025

More early, unconfirmed footage:

Footage Shows Activation of Air Defenses in Qatar

Newly circulated footage shows Qatari air defense systems being activated, reportedly in response to incoming missiles from Iran. pic.twitter.com/j408U0CHdn

— Ahmad Algohbary (@AhmadAlgohbary) June 23, 2025

It seems the Pentagon knew it was coming, and this may be telegraphed… perhaps more war theater:

Almost every single large military aircraft parked at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar evacuated the installation this week, with over 34 aircraft repositioning to other bases further from Iran.

The US confirmed that it moved some assets “vulnerable to Iranian attack.” -Reuters pic.twitter.com/DkaVAUz6s9

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) June 19, 2025

* * *

Update(1235ET): A series of rapid news wire headlines have set off the alarm of an Iranian attack on US interests in the Middle East is ‘imminent’. Lots of fast-paced unverified claims racing:

• Iran moves ballistic missile assets to target US assets across the region — WSJ
• Large GPS disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz
• US military jets being scrambled from Saudi Arabia, British & French military jets being scrambled
• TRUMP ADMIN PREPARING FOR IRAN ATTACK ON US GULF BASES: AXIOS
• CHINA URGES CITIZENS IN QATAR TO AVOID AL UDEID AIR BASE

Qatar has already been shutting down airspace, and importantly that is home to the US 5th Fleet.

JUST IN: Iran is moving missile launchers into place for a potential attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East in response to the surprise American strike on three nuclear sites over the weekend, according to U.S. officials.

DOD tracking a “credible” threat to U.S. forces in the…

— Lara Seligman (@laraseligman) June 23, 2025

“Iran is moving missile launchers into place for a potential attack on U.S. forces in the Middle East in response to the surprise American strike on three nuclear sites over the weekend, according to U.S. officials,” the breaking reports say.

S&P 500 ERASES GAIN

* * *

Update(1125ET): Iranian state media sources are reporting that Iran is likely to attack US military facilities in the Mideast region ‘in the coming hours’.

There are an estimated 40,000 American troops throughout the whole region, including at bases and on warships in the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

On Sunday the NY Times had cited US officials to say anonymous US military and intelligence officials had detected signs that Iran-backed groups are preparing hostile action against US forces in places like Syria and Iraq. There’s also the possibility of direct Iranian ballistic missile launches on bases in Iraq, just as happened in the wake of Soleimani’s assassination during the first Trump administration.

But is this response being telegraphed or even coordinated with the US so as to avoid uncontrollable escalation? Israeli journalist Amit Segal reports:

Senior Israeli officials assess that Iran will, in one way or another, coordinate its attack on the United States — similar to how it acted following the assassination of Qassem Soleimani. This is intended to avoid an unplanned escalation and out of hope to contain the incident. Perhaps in this context come the reports suggesting that the U.S. already knows the attack will take place within the next 48 hours.

Iranian missile and drone attacks on Israel started out fierce and sustained, but have waned in the last days. Tehran is not expected to go after US assets with such intensity, fearing that Washington could launch a full war of regime change targeting the Ayatollah.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic continues to get pummeled by now daily and nightly Israeli airstrikes, particularly over unprotected airspace in Western Iran…

The end of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps headquarters pic.twitter.com/s5FEB4a0AT

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) June 23, 2025

* * *

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has said in a fresh interview that the US administration is ‘confident’ that Saturday’s bombings of three key Iranian nuclear sites accomplished the job of dismantling Tehran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. She also said Trump made the decision “based on his own instincts and the US intelligence that he saw.”

“This strike on Saturday did make our homeland safer because it took away Iran’s ability to create a nuclear bomb. This is a regime that threatens ‘death to America,’ and ‘death to Israel, and they no longer have the capability to build this nuclear weapon and threaten the world,” she told ABC News on Monday morning while making media rounds. 

At a moment White House officials have been trying to downplay that this is a conflict of regime change in Iran, Leavitt did say the US is seeking to “Take away the power of this incredibly violent regime.“

Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz were hit with huge bunker-buster bombs over the weekend, after which President Trump late Sunday declared on Truth Social: “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!”

However, UN inspectors at the IAEA currently have no access to the impacted sites of Fordow, Isfahan and Natanz – and the country remains essentially a warzone, also with airspace closed- as the region braces for potential Iranian response against US bases and assets. And of course, satellites can’t assess damage underground, where the enrichment facilities and stockpiles are located.

Press Secretary on FOX: “why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime?”

.@PressSec: “If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful, diplomatic solution — which the President is still interested in engaging in … why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime? … Our posture has not changed.” pic.twitter.com/EkBKDSFkcO

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 23, 2025

Also interesting is that Leavitt repeated the US administration talking point that the intel on Iran that Trump was provided made clear that Iran was ‘weeks’ from a nuclear weapon.

It remains that once again the American people are being led into supporting another US war and quagmire in the Middle East based on ‘trust us!’ from this administration, citing vague ‘intel reports’ on WMD, which sounds suspiciously like the faulty Bush-Cheney case against Saddam Hussein.

Still, the White House official narrative remains that Trump is not seeking full regime change in Iran, and this is also how Israeli media is presenting it in recent headlines:

“The President’s posture and our military posture has not changed,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt tells reporters.

“The president was simply raising a question that I think many people around the world are asking: if the Iranian regime refuses to give up its nuclear program or engage in talks… if they refuse to engage in diplomacy moving forward, why shouldn’t the Iranian people rise up against this brutal terrorist regime?”

So we are already in the ‘Iranian people should rise up’ phase of this war.

Below are all the latest headlines and developments of the last 24-48 hours…

* * *

Israel-Iran Latest Highlights

• US President Trump confirmed the launch of “Operation Midnight Hammer”, which involved targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation used 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers, alongside submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles. Fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (“bunker busters”) were deployed to penetrate deeply buried targets, notably Fordow.
• Satellite imagery shows significant damage at all facilities. Trump described it as a joint effort with Israel.
• IAEA say the damage assessment is pending; no signs of radiation leak.
• In retaliation, Iran’s parliament has approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the US launched strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s security body will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the plan, state television reported.
• Iran retaliated by missile strikes on Israel. Has said future action could target over 20 US bases or naval assets. Iran’s Military Central Command says powerful operations with heavy consequences for the US are to be expected. US entering the conflict expands the list of legitimate targets for Iran.
• The European morning has seen a slew of geopolitical updates (see section below). Some additional USD strength on: an Iranian provincial official says Israel is targeting the Fordow nuclear facility, via Tasnim. Israel struck Fordow’s access road, to prevent certain elements from approaching the area, according to Journalist Stein.
• Iran’s Military Central Command says powerful operations with heavy consequences for the US are to be expected. US entering the conflict expands the list of legitimate targets for Iran.
• Iran’s Army Chief says they are now free to take action against US interests, via IRNA.
• Iranian city Karaj has been targeted by Israeli missiles, according to Fars; reports of large explosions being heard in Tehran.
• Russian Kremlin says President Putin will receive the Iranian Foreign Minister later today. Communication channels remain open with the US, a call between US President Trump and Putin can be “quickly organised if required”; no current plans for a call. Iran can share its proposals later today.

Israel-Iran Weekend News

US Strike Operations

• US President Trump confirmed the launch of “Operation Midnight Hammer”, which involved targeted strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation used 125 aircraft, including seven B-2 bombers, alongside submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles.
• Fourteen GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators (“bunker busters”) were deployed to penetrate deeply buried targets, notably Fordow.
• Satellite imagery confirmed significant infrastructure damage at all three nuclear sites, with Fordow showing six fresh craters.
• All targets were reportedly struck between 23:40 BST (Saturday) and 00:05 BST (Sunday). Iran’s air defence systems failed to detect or intercept the incoming attacks.
• Trump described the attack as a joint effort with Israel, saying they “worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before.”
• Axios quoted officials as saying that Whitkov told Araqchi during the operation that “the strike is only once.” He confirmed that Washington was still seeking a diplomatic solution and wanted Tehran to return to negotiations.
• US President Trump did not want to continue striking Iran, but he would do so if US bases were targeted, according to Sky News Arabia citing Axios.
• US President Trump reportedly directed staff to announce a two-week window in order to conceal plans for the Iran attack, according to CNN sources.

Damage Assessment & Nuclear Risk

• IAEA Director General Grossi said craters are visible at Fordow, Natanz suffered direct hits, and tunnel entrances at Isfahan were struck. Full underground damage assessment remains pending. A special IAEA board meeting is scheduled for Monday.
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Dan Caine stated it is “too early” to assess whether Iran’s nuclear capability was fully neutralised.
• US intelligence officials have raised concerns Iran may have relocated enriched uranium stockpiles in advance.
• US Secretary of State Rubio urged Iran to surrender its enriched uranium stockpiles, claiming they remain buried under Isfahan and likely were not moved before the strikes.
• The IAEA reported no signs of a radiation leak. Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority confirmed no radioactive effects were detected in Gulf states.

Strait of Hormuz & Oil Flow Threat

• The Iranian parliament has approved the closure of the Strait of Hormuz after the US launched strikes against the country’s nuclear facilities. Iran’s security body will make the final decision on whether to proceed with the plan, state television reported.
• US Secretary of State Rubio warned such a move would be “economic suicide” for Iran but remains a credible escalation vector.
• NOTE: Market contacts have suggested OPEC+ have not had any calls, with no talks of an emergency meeting yet amid no signs of supply disruptions, yet.

Iranian Military Response

• Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa, Israel, resulting in at least 86 reported injuries.
• Iranian officials have warned that future actions could target over 20 US bases or naval assets in the region.
• Iran stated that its military would determine the timing, nature, and scale of its response, according to Reuters.
• Signs have emerged of Iran‑backed militias preparing to attack US bases in Iraq and Syria, according to Sky News Arabia citing The New York Times.
• Iranian air defences reportedly activated in Isfahan, targeting hostile Israeli aircraft.
• Iranian forces reported that Israeli airstrikes killed nine personnel — seven Revolutionary Guards and two conscripts — in Yazd province.

Iranian Messaging

• Iran is weighing its response — with its Foreign Minister saying “all options” are on the table after Washington proved “they only understand the language of threat and force”, according to CNN.
• Supreme Leader Khamenei warned that US strikes would “result in irreparable damage” to the US.
• Iran’s President Pezeshkian warned of a “more devastating” retaliation if Israel’s bombing campaign continued.
• Iranian regime sources denied any major nuclear material loss from the strikes, implying the sites had been pre-emptively evacuated.
• Iran’s Crisis Management HQ stated there was “no danger” to civilians near Fordow; state media reported the site had “long been evacuated.”
• An adviser to Khamenei claimed Iran still retains its enriched uranium, indigenous nuclear knowledge, and political will, despite facility damage.
• Iran’s Foreign Minister condemned the strikes as a violation of international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
• The Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation called the attacks “a barbaric act” breaching international law.

International Reactions

• The UN Security Council held an emergency meeting at 20:00 BST on Sunday in response to the strikes. US Ambassador Dorothy Shea defended the operation; China, Russia, and Pakistan called for an immediate ceasefire and accused the US of breaching the UN Charter.
• The UN and EU called for de-escalation, with Secretary-General António Guterres warning of a “dangerous escalation.”
• The E3 (UK, France, Germany) released a joint statement urging Iran to return to nuclear negotiations and warning against further destabilising actions.
• Gulf Arab states including Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait condemned the US strikes, calling for restraint and diplomatic resolution.
• UK PM Keir Starmer backed the US strike, describing it as a response to a “grave threat.”
• Israeli PM Netanyahu praised the US action, calling it a display of “awesome and righteous might” that could “change history.”
• Saudi Arabia, Oman, and India expressed concern and urged all sides to pursue diplomatic solutions.

US Political & Legal Fallout

• Congressional response to the strikes was mixed. Most Republicans expressed support, with Senator Ted Cruz praising the operation. However, some dissent emerged within the party, notably from Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who stated, “Not our fight.” Democrats strongly criticised the move; Senator Bernie Sanders labelled it “grossly unconstitutional” and accused President Trump of bypassing Congress.
• US Department of Justice said President Trump had the authority under Article II to order Iran strikes without congressional approval, but a prolonged conflict might require Congress’s involvement, according to CNN.
• US President Trump to meet with National Security team at 13:00 EDT/18:00 BST on Monday, according to Bloomberg.

Trump on Truth Social

• US President Trump posted on Sunday “The damage to the Nuclear sites in Iran is said to be “monumental.” The hits were hard and accurate. Great skill was shown by our military. ” Trump added that “if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change”, and that “The GREAT B-2 pilots have just landed, safely, in Missouri.”
• President Trump later posted “Monumental Damage was done to all Nuclear sites in Iran, as shown by satellite images. Obliteration is an accurate term!… The biggest damage took place far below ground level. Bullseye!!!”

US Homeland Security & Domestic Threats

• The US is on high alert for Iranian-backed terrorist attacks, especially in the 48 hours following the strike. FBI, DHS, and local law enforcement have increased security presence at places of worship in major cities including New York and Washington, DC.
• DHS warned of a heightened domestic threat environment, including potential for cyberattacks or lone-wolf incidents inspired by religious rulings.
• The White House is monitoring potential Iranian sleeper cells inside the US.
• VP Vance stated the administration is watching known terror watch list individuals who entered during the Biden era.

Regional Axis Responses/Headlines

• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi arrived in Moscow to consult with President Putin. Russia condemned the US strikes as a “flagrant violation of international law.”
• Iran’s Foreign Minister Araqchi said he would discuss tackling common challenges and threats with Russian President Putin, according to Iranian news agency SNN.
• Hezbollah condemned the US strikes, calling them a violation of international and humanitarian law and warned the conflict could spiral globally.
• A Yemeni Houthi official warned retaliation for the US attack was “only a matter of time.”

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Reserve announced on June 23 that it will no longer factor “reputation risk” into its bank examinations, a move aligned with efforts by Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration to combat what they describe as politically motivated financial discrimination—particularly debanking.

The central bank said in a statement it has begun reviewing and revising its supervisory materials to remove references to reputation risk, replacing them where appropriate with more specific discussions of financial risk.

In its June 23 announcement, the Fed said it has started the process of reviewing references to reputation risk in its supervisory materials and replacing them, when appropriate, with more specific discussions of financial risk.

“This change does not alter the Board’s expectation that banks maintain strong risk management to ensure safety and soundness and compliance with law and regulation,” the Fed said in a statement.

The decision marks a significant shift in how regulators assess banks, particularly as scrutiny intensifies over claims that some institutions have denied services to lawful businesses—such as cryptocurrency firms, religious organizations, or political groups—based on subjective concerns about reputational harm.

Although banks generally have wide discretion over account relationships, critics argue that invoking reputational risk can mask discriminatory decisions. These concerns have fueled growing bipartisan calls to ensure fair access to financial services.

“This is how de-banking works,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times in a 2023 interview. “The bank closes the accounts, doesn’t give a clear reason, and cites some kind of risk toleration policy for the denial, under circumstances that look very suspiciously like it was because of your religious or political views.”

Lawmakers have responded with legislation aimed at combating financial discrimination. In March, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), for example, introduced the Fair Access to Banking Act (FIRM Act), which would bar federal regulators from penalizing or pressuring financial institutions based on reputational risk. A bipartisan House version was introduced the following month by Reps. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).

“For too long, unelected regulators have used the vague and subjective concept of reputational risk to push political ideology under the guise of bank supervision,” Barr said in a statement. “The FIRM Act restores neutrality and integrity to our financial regulatory system and protects the right of all Americans to access banking services without fear of unlawful discrimination.”

The Fed’s move aligns it with other banking regulators that have recently taken similar action. In March, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said it would remove references to reputational risk from its manuals and guidance documents.

“The OCC has never used reputation risk as a catch-all justification for supervisory action,” the agency said in a statement. “Nonetheless, the OCC believes removing references to reputation risk will improve transparency and confidence in the supervisory process.”

Days later, Travis Hill, acting chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), informed Congress that the agency would also eliminate reputational risk as a standalone factor, calling it a concept that “has been abused in the past” and adds “no value from a safety and soundness perspective.”

During an April speech at the American Bankers Association summit, Hill said the FDIC was drafting a rule that would explicitly bar supervisors from criticizing or taking action against banks based on reputational risk—particularly if it relates to clients’ political, religious, or social views.

“We are also exploring additional ideas to comprehensively put an end to debanking,” Hill said. “Overall, we are prioritizing ensuring our regulatory approach promotes a vibrant, growing economy, while at the same time promoting a safe, sound, and resilient banking system.”

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has also acknowledged the seriousness of the issue. Earlier this year, he told lawmakers during a congressional hearing that the Fed was taking a “fresh look” at reports of debanking, noting he had been “struck by the growing number of cases” where individuals or businesses were allegedly denied financial services.

Powell suggested that regulatory overreach and heightened risk aversion may be contributing factors and said the matter warranted closer examination.

According to a new Resume.io survey, nearly one in six Americans under 28 won’t even look at a job unless it comes with a designated nap zone.

Yes, nap pods — the latest dealbreaker for Gen-Z job hunters, according to the NY Post.

“It’s clear Gen-Z isn’t shy about voicing what they want from today’s workplace,” said Amanda Augustine, career coach and resident expert at Resume.io, which polled 1,000 professionals nationwide. “For many, it goes beyond salary and health insurance.”

Apparently, what it does include is snoozing on the clock, playing ping pong, and hanging out with dogs.

The NY Post writes that one in five Gen-Zers insists on having a “fun room” with games. The same number flat-out refuse to work anywhere that isn’t pet-friendly — a stance that makes millennials look easygoing and boomers practically spartan by comparison.

And don’t expect them to be impressed just because the office has kombucha on tap. A third of Gen-Z expects free snacks and lunch like it’s a constitutional right. Even then, many would prefer not to come in at all. A full third say a four-day workweek is non-negotiable, and one in four wants extended sabbaticals — for “personal development” or, let’s be real, globe-trotting.

“These aren’t just nice-to-have extras; they reflect a shifting view around well-being,” Augustine added.

Augustine explained the broader cultural shift, saying younger workers are “pushing back against the old model of constant hustle and burnout” in favor of something more livable — or at least more entertaining.

She also had a warning for companies hoping to recruit the next wave of workers: “Companies that dismiss these priorities as frivolous may find it increasingly difficult to attract and retain top talent.”

For the record, despite all the fun-and-games chatter, the top workplace perk across all ages remains good old-fashioned paid overtime — with 76% calling it a must-have.

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

San Francisco is the worst-run city in the nation, according to a report by WalletHub.

Several other California cities also ranked in the bottom 10 of 148 cities, including Stockton (138), Los Angeles (139), Long Beach (140), Fresno (141), and Oakland (146).

The finance website created a “Quality of Services” score of 36 metrics split into six categories, which was then measured against 148 of the nation’s most populated city’s per-capita budget.

San Francisco came in last overall, ranking 89th in financial stability, 137th in education, 102nd in safety, and 135th in economy.

The WalletHub study also looked at the operating efficiency of cities, by comparing the quality of city services residents receive against the city’s budget.

“The best-run cities in America use their budgets most effectively to provide high-quality financial security, education, health, safety and transportation to their residents,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo said in the June 17 report.

“Many of the top cities also have a very low amount of outstanding government debt per capita, which can prevent financial troubles in the future.”

San Francisco ranked so low in part due to its long-term debt holdings. Moody’s lowered San Francisco’s credit rating in 2024, citing in part, the high number of commercial vacancies in its downtown, Moody’s said in a statement to Bloomberg News.

It ranked highest in long-term debt outstanding per capita, coming in at 146th, with debt levels 89 times higher than the best city: Casper, Wyoming.

In the report, San Francisco ranked 135th in economy, suggesting that San Francisco’s high per-capita budget isn’t resulting in effective service quality.  The city had $2.2 billion in outstanding city general obligation bonds as of June 30, 2024.

The WalletHub study ranked San Francisco last in high school graduation rate at 90.4 percent. By contrast Frederick, Maryland, ranked number one, graduating students in 2024 at a rate of 94.3 percent, a 1 percent increase over the year prior.

Although San Francisco’s roads have improved in recent years, there is still room for improvement. San Francisco’s 2,148.3 total lane miles ranked tied for 126th in quality of roads.

In 2024, San Francisco’s independently rated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score increased to 75, a rating categorized as “good” by the regional Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). This rating placed San Francisco as having the best roads among large Bay Area cities.

The pavement in the Bay Area, encompassing 44,000 lane miles of local streets and roads, does not receive great ratings overall. The MTC placed the region’s 2023 PCI score at 67 out of a maximum possible 100 points, and is therefore deemed “fair.”

“The good news is that city and county public works teams have been able to prevent large-scale deterioration. We’re even seeing big improvements in some places. The bad news is there’s still so far to go,” MTC chair and Napa County Supervisor Alfredo Pedroza said of the Bay Area’s roads in 2024.

San Francisco scored much higher in two measures: It was second in health, potentially owing to the fact that the city has the lowest infant mortality rate. And it ranked 13th for infrastructure and pollution risk.

The top cities on WalletHub’s list are Provo, Utah; Nampa, Idaho; Manchester, New Hampshire; Boise, Idaho; and Nashua, New Hampshire.

Cost of Living

WalletHub, which creates tools and resources to help consumers manage their finances, acknowledges that cities across the country have been ravaged by high inflation.

According to the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) State Inflation Tracker, the average California household was paying $1,278 more per month for the identical basket of goods and services in December 2024 compared to January 2021. Cumulatively, that amounted to $38,353 in higher spending per household over that time period.

The California weighted average of the consumer price index (CPI) in 1965, came in at 31.7 (using 1982-4 as the reference line at 100); by 2024, it had risen to 341.951.

This has locked local leaders into a delicate balancing act, especially as of late, as they must factor in the significant increase in the cost of goods when deciding where to place budget funds. In San Diego, the city has been weighing cuts in services such as public restrooms, and has already increased the price of parking downtown.

“Leaders must carefully consider which services are most essential, which agencies’ budgets to cut or boost, and whether and how much to raise taxes, among other decisions,” the WalletHub report states.

Japan’s auto exports remain the biggest obstacle in reaching a trade deal with the U.S., according to opposition leaders briefed by Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

Yoshihiko Noda, head of the Constitutional Democratic Party, said after a Thursday meeting with Ishiba that the U.S. focus on the automotive trade deficit is the primary roadblock, according to Bloomberg.

“He didn’t give a clear explanation, but it seems that the US has the strongest interest in the auto trade deficit,” Noda told reporters. “Various ideas were probably proposed, but there are differences in thinking regarding autos. So, he said a general consensus has yet to be reached.”

Despite two months of negotiations and a recent meeting between Ishiba and U.S. President Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada, no agreement has been made.

Japan’s trade surplus with the U.S. reached ¥8.6 trillion ($59.3 billion) last year—82% of which came from autos and auto parts—putting the country in Trump’s crosshairs as he pushes to rebalance trade using tariffs.

The U.S. has already imposed 25% duties on cars and related components, a serious concern for Japan, where the auto industry supports 5.6 million jobs and makes up about 10% of GDP.

Exports to the U.S. plunged 11% in May, with auto shipments down 25%. The monthly surplus still stood at ¥451.7 billion, with 93% tied to the auto sector, according to the Finance Ministry.

Bloomberg writes that Japan Innovation Party co-leader Seiji Maehara also confirmed that autos remain the main sticking point.

“He didn’t mention the details,” Maehara said. “But I felt that the biggest difference exists in automobiles. Japan is requesting a reduction in automobile tariffs, but I suspect that Trump may not have agreed to that.”

Ishiba assured party leaders that the government would support the auto industry through loans and broader cooperation. The talks are politically sensitive, coming just ahead of a key upper house election in July.

The uncertainty also hangs over a July 9 deadline, when U.S. reciprocal tariffs are set to revert to higher rates. Noda said it’s still unclear what the U.S. will decide.

If the hike goes through, Japan could see its across-the-board tariffs rise to 24% from 10%, on top of the existing 50% duties on steel and aluminum.

“We’re facing a situation that can be described as a national crisis,” Ishiba said. “To overcome it, we’ll take into account opposition party views and continue to strongly seek a review of the US tariff measures.”

Authored by David Marks via The Brownstone Institute,

At a recent family gathering, I sat at the dinner table with a group of loved ones for the first time since the Covid-19 fiasco. Most of the cheerful discussion focused on the spectacular event of the week: my mother’s 100th birthday. 

I was the only person at the table who hadn’t had any form of flu for many years, while all of the guests had been ill to one degree or another. Almost everyone had tested positive for Covid at least once over the last few years with accompanying flu symptoms. Although no one in my family was hospitalized or died during the so-called pandemic; they all had been vaccinated repeatedly. As far as I know, my wife and I were the only ones in our families who didn’t get any Covid shot, and I haven’t been inoculated for anything in the last seventy years. 

On this happy occasion, the fear, masks, lockdowns, and accusations of the recent past had been mostly forgotten. It was not because the signs and symptoms of the disease had ended, nor that the call for vaccination or testing had been silenced. No one understood why they were still occasionally feeling unwell, with some continuing to report they’d been diagnosed with Covid. 

My view of healthcare has always been outside of the box, having practiced Traditional Chinese Medicine for many decades. I’d worked closely with medical doctors in treating some of their patients and also served as the chief medical officer of a volunteer fire department, appreciating life-saving emergency procedures of modern biomedicine. Through a range of experiences, I gained some knowledge of the causes and cures for suffering and illness.

Before the Covid fiasco, my alternative approach to illness had been respected; I’d shared my knowledge with whoever might ask. My medical perspective was no secret from friends and family. When my daughters were young, they weren’t vaccinated as there were no threats of deadly or debilitating diseases. This was in a place and time when vaccination for infants could be considered and refused, not done by rote. There was reasonable dialogue about the topic — and non-compliance certainly did not elicit threats of excommunication. 

As the specter of a pandemic arose, my opinion about vaccination became dangerous and irrelevant. 

From the outset, it was apparent that the claimed benefits of the new vaccines did not outweigh their risks. I openly said and wrote that the technology remained untested — though never advised anyone to refrain from inoculation — only counseling those who listened to remain fully informed.

It wasn’t complicated. Using genetic-based technology in developing a new drug that attempted to manipulate the magnificent complexity of the human immune system was at a minimum, a gamble. As easily demonstrated, this new technology embraced the bold assumption that human design was flawed and could be improved. It was premature to declare that this experimental treatment was safe and effective. We still don’t know the actual long-term effects — particularly over generations.

This simple and logical evaluation was considered preposterous by those who responded to the seemingly new disease with unbridled fear. The danger of the Covid flu was deemed sufficient to quell all reasonable responses about the risks of the vaccines. Suddenly, there was an eclipse of medical autonomy, and debate was scorned. The actions and motives of corrupted government agencies and their profit-oriented allies in Big Pharma were blessed by devious leaders, who deemed them altruistic and unquestionable. 

This atmosphere, developed and enforced in a haze of authoritarian dictates, created an unprecedented climate of hostility that infected all relationships. Because of my views and unvaccinated status, I rapidly became a pariah to my family.

Early on, when the fear tactics were in high gear, my cousin, who is an attorney involved in healthcare issues, sent a blistering email, condemning one of my first articles skewering the pandemic response. He left no room for dialogue and writing, it is the height of irresponsibility to add to the disinformation that is everywhere about the Covid vaccine. He concluded…

I am really upset that you have chosen to use your talents and thoughtful manner to give credence to the kind of wrongheaded rhetoric and conspiracy theories that feed the mass hysteria over accepting the reality that if we are to beat this pandemic, we need to not just take the vaccine if we want to, but take it on a societal level whether certain individuals want to or not. Your call for “transparency” just further feeds a certain, huge segment of the populations’ belief that they know better than the experts on this issue. They do not. You do not. I do not. But every reputable researcher and medical professional who has reviewed this data agree – it is safe, it is effective, and it is critical.

The venom exuded in response to my unwillingness to join in the mass delusion supporting vaccination was palpable. My crime was unforgivable.

Although we had been very close, all contact ended. However, it was not his unconscious, misdirected anger that troubled me, rather that he shared his views and wrath with my daughters, supporting their inclination to distance themselves from me because of my independent views. This wound with my cousin may never heal.

My mother, who had cordially disagreed with me on vaccination, balanced his bias with sound advice to her granddaughters. She urged them not to be harsh, suggesting that whatever differences they see, these were not worthy of destroying their relationship with their father. Thanks to her wise counsel, the love my daughters and I share has survived.

This and similar events had been left smoldering. In the spring of 2025, at this happy gathering celebrating my mom’s longevity, to my surprise, the topic turned to Covid. (My cousin was not there.) Conversation comprised mostly of personal accounts of suffering and confessions of a lack of understanding of why the virus persisted. 

My sister said she’d attended a lecture at a local college on the history of the social response to mass infection. She described the common human responses and behaviors to past epidemics and pandemics, including how scapegoating was a dominant and destructive response. 

Managing to remain quiet until all had acknowledged these horrors of the past, I spoke up, voicing a simple question: Did the recent Covid pandemic fit this pattern?

Of course, was the answer.

I innocently replied, And what group was reproached and attacked for causing the Covid pandemic?

There was a considered pause, and then everyone agreed, it was the Chinese.

With certainty I said, There were questions about whether an animal market or a lab leak was the initiating cause, but the Chinese as a culture or a nation were never blamed. Wasn’t there another group that became the scapegoats?

No one seemed to be willing to consider this inquiry, and I was pressed to say who I believed was targeted.

The vast majority of health professionals, public figures, including actors and business leaders, government medical agencies and the entire administration stood behind the President of the United States who openly declared that this was a pandemic of the unvaccinated. The press echoed this vicious attack. A majority of Americans did not object to this belligerent contrivance, but there was never any evidence that the unvaccinated had caused or exacerbated the pandemic. Wasn’t this overt and classic scapegoating?

There was dead silence at the table.

I expected some defense of my assessment, but there was none.

Then suddenly my brother (who had been vaccinated and had been ill a few times) spoke up loudly and emotionally, almost in tears, saying, I don’t want to hear any more about Covid — it has caused enough pain and suffering — and we should stop talking about it.

As he was trembling with emotion, I gently suggested that he leave the table and he did. His explosive declaration ended any conversation about the topic —there was no further response to my contention; I didn’t push it further. 

My brother soon returned and unnecessarily apologized for his outburst. Though seemingly irrational, it was a direct response to my assertion — he had processed it as best he could. No one else had responded to my suggestion that they had participated in scapegoating the unvaccinated; he failed to recognize his ethical transgression, though had at least expressed some emotion. 

It became apparent that historical atrocities are much easier to recognize than more recent iniquities. Few have admitted that ignorance, anger, and the demeaning of innocent people in response to Covid was an egregious, unfounded violation of human rights. 

Those who sat with me at this table — and millions of others — have not considered the eclipse of their compassion and rationality. Few people can confess to having been manipulated into indefensible, loathsome conduct. They would have to see their similarity with those in past pandemics, who had projected blame and abused innocents for the suffering they were feeling. It takes a brave soul to admit that their emptiness and desperation caused them to display venom, disdain, and violence.

Because of the unwillingness to face the truth, the unrecognized pain and tears of those who questioned or refused mass vaccination remain unhealed, continuing a climate where repressive tactics and regimes are tolerated. 

No matter how much information about the abuses of powerful forces during the pandemic, no matter how much data supports the dangers of the Covid response, no matter how much is learned about the deviant behavior of leadership and government agencies, the unvaccinated have yet to be vindicated.

Self-serving, unconscious attitudes continue to dominate, confirming human nature has not evolved since the plagues of the Dark Ages. In times of difficulty and stress, it remains more convenient and simpler to find others at fault, rather than perceive our failures.

Republished from the author’s Substack

The US Supreme Court just lifted a lower court’s order that required the Trump administration to give people 10 days’ notice and a chance to object before deporting them to a third country.

“The United States is facing a crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove,” Solicitor General John Saur wrote in an emergency application to the court in May.

“When illegal aliens commit crimes in this country, they are typically ordered removed. But when those crimes are especially heinous, their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. As a result, criminal aliens are often allowed to stay in the United States for years on end, victimizing law-abiding Americans in the meantime.”

The brief unsigned order came in the case known as Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. with (surprise, surprise) Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan dissenting from the decision, who said they “cannot join so gross an abuse” of the high court’s authority.

“Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,” Sotomayor wrote.

“That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”

The government has tried to speed up the deportation process “by removing aliens to third countries that have agreed to accept them.”

“Convincing third countries to accept some of the most undesirable aliens requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiation and the balancing of other foreign-policy interests,” it stated.

Now, the administration can proceed with fast-track deportations of “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens” to countries it has made deals with, such as South Sudan.

Of course, not everyone is happy.

“The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

“It strips away critical due process protections…”

We look forward to seeing President Trump’s response.