NATO Country Halts Arms To Ukraine Under New Eurosceptic Prime Minister
In yet another example of Ukraine war fatigue among European allies, NATO member Bulgaria has newly announce it is halting weapons deliveries to Ukraine, signaling a major shift in the eastern European country’s longtime policy.
The prior government proved itself early out of the gate as an enthusiastic arms backer of Kiev, but new Bulgarian Prime Minister Rumen Radev, whose Progressive Bulgaria party won the April election, is rolling back the prior policy.
The new government has made clear it has a new peace agenda, and its position is that nothing will be resolved by just pouring more heavy arms into the conflict, now in its fifth year. It was given a new mandate, but after reports of low voter turnout in the country.
“What we are witnessing is a war of attrition, and no matter how much weaponry is amassed, its only result is the loss of human lives,” the country’s Defense Minister Dimitar Stoyanov told reporters on Tuesday,
The defense chief stressed it is time to sit down at the negotiating table “to seek a just peace that is defined by both sides.”
“Ukraine needs more people, not more weapons. It has enough weapons, so we do not envisage providing more weapons to the Ukrainian army,” he added.
“Of course, the role of the EU is extremely important,” he said, explaining that “it would be difficult to assign this role to that of a mediator for the simple reason that the EU has also assisted Ukraine in its efforts in this war anyway.”
As for the recently installed in office Radev, he’s a eurosceptic former fighter pilot, who had built his campaign around calls for pragmatic ties with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy supplies and an end to military aid for Ukraine.
He has repeatedly criticized EU overreach on green-energy mandates, sanctions policies and what he describes as moral posturing in a “world without rules.” While analysts note he is unlikely to ultimately jeopardize the flow of EU funds that sustain Bulgaria’s economy, the result installs a distinctly Russia-friendly government at the heart of the EU’s southeastern flank – a shift that will draw close scrutiny in Brussels, Washington and Kyiv.
Radev’s campaign had leaned heavily into criticism of EU overreach – particularly its green-energy obsession, sanctions regime, and moral posturing in a “world without rules.” He has repeatedly called for improved relations with Moscow, resumption of Russian energy flows, and an end to military aid for Ukraine – and now he’s begun to make good on these promises, it appears.
Other Western allies have complained he’s too ‘Russia-sympathetic’ – and have called to keep up the steady flow of arms to Ukraine forces.
The brutal murder of Henry Nowak should have focused public attention on the circumstances surrounding his death and the troubling questions it raises about justice, race, and social cohesion in contemporary Britain.
Yet one need only read one widely publicized headline to know that another story is about to be told: “How Britain’s far right hijacked the murder of Henry Nowak.”
Predictably, the tragedy is being pressed into service as evidence of the supposedly inexorable rise of the “far right” and “white grievance.”
The victim, it seems, is of secondary importance.
What truly concerns much of the legacy media is not the murder itself but the possibility that ordinary citizens might draw conclusions that fall outside the approved narrative. Once again, a deeply disturbing event is filtered through a set of ideological assumptions so familiar that the outcome is known before the reporting has even begun.
The most revealing aspect of this story is not the crime itself, however disturbing, but the legacy media’s inability to imagine it meaning anything beyond its established ideological script. The circumstances may change, but the narrative remains reassuringly familiar: another cautionary tale about the rise of the “far right.” The conclusion is already written before the reporting begins.
Predictably, the legacy media appears determined to interpret the controversy through the now-standard lens of right-wing extremism. Whenever social tensions arise around immigration, crime, identity, or unequal treatment under the law, the first instinct is rarely to assess whether the public’s concerns have any merit. Instead, attention immediately shifts to the alleged dangers posed by those raising concerns. The story ceases to be about the underlying issue and becomes about the people noticing it.
This reflex reveals a profound intellectual exhaustion. The explanatory framework that dominated public discourse twenty years ago remains largely unchanged despite repeated failures to account for social realities that large numbers of ordinary citizens can plainly see.
Every electoral upset, every protest movement, every surge of public dissatisfaction is interpreted as evidence of the same phenomenon: the mysterious emergence of the “far right.” One might be forgiven for thinking that half of Europe has spent the last decade spontaneously transforming into fascists.
Yet a more plausible explanation often presents itself. Perhaps public frustration stems not from an outbreak of extremism but from a growing perception that institutions no longer operate by consistent principles. Is it reasonable to think that people object when standards appear to vary by race, ethnicity, religion, or political ideology? Or maybe they become angry when authorities seem more concerned with managing public perceptions than with addressing legitimate grievances.
In Nowak’s case, the question many people are asking is straightforward. Would the response have been identical had the races of those involved been reversed? Would the media framing have been the same? Would public officials have reacted in precisely the same way? These are not inherently extremist questions. They are questions about fairness, equal treatment, and institutional legitimacy. And we all know the answer.
Yet for many journalists, the possibility that institutions themselves may be engaging in differential treatment is dismissed before it can even be considered. The hypothesis cannot be entertained because it collides with a set of assumptions that have become foundational to institutions throughout the West.
The result is a curious form of myopia. Evidence that might challenge prevailing assumptions is either ignored or reinterpreted until it fits comfortably within the existing narrative framework. The rise in public discontent cannot be attributed to institutional failures; therefore, it must reflect the rise of extremism.
Declining trust in the media cannot result from biased reporting; therefore, it must result from misinformation. Electoral revolts cannot be responses to genuine policy failures; therefore, they can only be reactions driven by fear, prejudice, or ignorance.
This explanatory model is remarkably resilient. Like the medieval physician who attributed every illness to an imbalance of humors, today’s media class has found a single diagnostic tool that explains virtually every social phenomenon. Economic stagnation? Far right. Concerns about immigration? Far right. Questions about crime? Far right. Skepticism toward public institutions? Far right.
At some point, one begins to suspect that the diagnosis may reveal more about the diagnostician than the patient.
The irony, of course, is that this approach increasingly undermines the very institutions that employ it. Public trust in mainstream media has declined sharply across much of the Western world. Journalists often attribute this erosion to social media or partisan manipulation. These factors undoubtedly play a role.
But another explanation suggests itself: people lose confidence in the media when they repeatedly observe a gap between what they see with their own eyes and what they are told to see. One thinks, for example, of the obvious dementia of the former U.S. President Joe Biden, even as the legacy media repeatedly told us to ignore the evidence of our own eyes and propagated the blatant untruth that he was, in fact, better than ever.
The public may not hold advanced degrees in journalism or sociology. They may not speak the language of intersectionality, structural privilege, or critical theory. Yet they retain a stubborn attachment to common sense. When institutions appear unwilling even to entertain obvious questions or obvious explanations, ordinary citizens naturally begin to search elsewhere for answers.
This is the disaster facing much of the legacy media today. The problem is not simply bias. All human beings possess biases. The deeper problem is an inability to recognize alternative explanations. A profession once dedicated to curiosity increasingly shows a remarkable lack of it. Stories are filtered through a set of approved assumptions that have hardened into dogma. Facts are welcomed when they confirm the narrative and treated with suspicion when they complicate it.
Meanwhile, the public grows steadily less willing to accept these interpretations at face value.
The great danger for legacy media is not that the “far right” will triumph. The greater danger is that journalists will continue to mistake every challenge to their assumptions as evidence of what they continue to label “extremism.” In doing so, they become incapable of understanding the societies they claim to describe.
After all, if every criticism of institutional behavior is dismissed as evidence of right-wing radicalism, the term eventually loses all explanatory power. It becomes less a description than a ritual incantation, repeated whenever reality threatens to intrude on the narrative.
And when that happens, people stop listening. And they are right to do so.
The public’s patience with such shibboleths is not infinite. Indeed, one suspects it is already running thin. Nevertheless, the old formulas still appear on cue. The familiar warnings are dutifully repeated. The specter of the far right is once again summoned from its cupboard. Yet with each repetition, the performance becomes less convincing.
The audience has heard the script before. The plot no longer surprises. Increasingly, they suspect that the storytellers may have lost touch with the story itself.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Washington has turned to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors in order to determine the fate of Iran’s highly enriched uranium, according to reports by Reutersand other media outlets.
Sources cited by Reuters – which obtained a draft of a resolution being pushed by the US – said that Iran is being called on to “provide the Agency with precise information on nuclear material accountancy and safeguarded nuclear facilities in Iran.”
The US draft also calls on Tehran to grant “all access it requires to verify this information,” adding that Iranian cooperation is “essential and urgent” and must happen “without delay.”
The text does not refer Iran to the UN Security Council, which would have followed up on the IAEA resolution declaring Tehran in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
That resolution was issued on 12 June 2025, a day before the US-backed 12-day war on Iran last year. Diplomats told Reuters that such a move was “under consideration.”
Al Mayadeen also reported, citing its own draft copy of the resolution, that Washington is lobbying states on the IAEA Board to back its push.
This came as IAEA chief Rafael Grossi called on Tehran to “re-engage” with the IAEA. “I call on Iran to engage the Agency constructively in order to facilitate the full and effective implementation of safeguards in Iran,” he said, adding that “It’s very important that we re-engage.”
Reuters reported earlier in June that the US was preparing a draft resolution to condemn Iran at an upcoming IAEA meeting. Tehran has repeatedly accused the IAEA of passing along sensitive information to Israel.
At the end of the 12-day war last year, the US attacked key Iranian nuclear sites and claimed it “obliterated” Tehran’s entire nuclear program.
Intelligence assessments indicated at the time that Washington’s claims were false. Since then, the IAEA has been demanding access to the targeted nuclear sites, a demand which Foreign Minister Abbas Aragchi referred to last year as “malicious.”
Dr. Trita Parsi (@tparsi) | Middle East Expert | Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft:
The debate inside Iran has shifted dramatically in favor of weaponization – becoming a problem for any deal.
In early April, Washington launched what it said was an effort to rescue a downed pilot over Iran. US forces faced heavy resistance from Iranian troops during the incursion and reportedly lost multiple aircraft.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry made a statement saying that the operation to rescue a downed pilot may have been part of a deception to steal enriched uranium.
Every January, I hear the same regret from friends and colleagues: “I wish I had known about that before the year ended.” Tax planning has a hard deadline, and most of the best strategies expire on December 31 with no extensions, no exceptions, and no do-overs.
I used to be one of those people who did not think about taxes until I sat down with a stack of documents in February. Then I started working with an accountant who taught me that tax planning is a year-round activity, and the moves you make in the final months of the year often have the biggest impact. Last year, the five strategies below saved me a combined $4,800 in taxes. None of them was complicated. All of them required acting before the calendar flipped.
Move One: Max Out Your Retirement Contributions
This is the single most impactful tax move available to most workers, and millions of people leave money on the table every year. For 2026, the 401(k) contribution limit is $23,500, with an additional $7,500 catch-up contribution if you are 50 or older. Every dollar you contribute to a traditional 401(k) reduces your taxable income dollar for dollar.
If you have not been maxing out, check your year-to-date contributions in November, and calculate how much room you have left. Many employers allow you to increase your contribution percentage mid-year, and some let you make additional lump-sum contributions in the final pay periods.
At a 24 percent marginal tax rate, maxing out a 401(k) at $23,500 saves $5,640 in federal income tax alone. Add state taxes if applicable, and the savings can exceed $7,000. That is real money – not deferred or theoretical, but actual tax dollars you do not pay.
If your employer offers a Roth 401(k) option, the contribution does not reduce current-year taxes but grows tax-free forever. The right choice depends on whether you expect your tax rate to be higher or lower in retirement. If you are unsure, splitting contributions between traditional and Roth gives you flexibility later.
IRA contributions have their own limits – $7,000 for 2026, plus $1,000 catch-up if over 50. Traditional IRA contributions may be deductible depending on your income and whether you have a workplace plan. Roth IRA contributions are not deductible but offer tax-free growth. Both have an April 15 deadline, but getting them done before year-end is simpler and ensures you do not forget.
Move Two: Harvest Your Tax Losses
Tax-loss harvesting is one of the most underused strategies in personal investing. The concept is simple: sell investments that have declined in value to realize a capital loss, then use that loss to offset capital gains or up to $3,000 of ordinary income per year.
If you have a stock or fund in your taxable brokerage account that is worth less than what you paid for it, selling it before December 31 creates a tax loss you can use immediately. If your total losses exceed your gains, the excess carries forward to future years indefinitely.
The key rule to know is the wash sale rule: if you buy a “substantially identical” investment within 30 days before or after the sale, the loss is disallowed. So if you sell an S&P 500 index fund at a loss, you cannot buy another S&P 500 index fund within 30 days. You can, however, buy a total stock market fund or a similar, though not identical, investment to maintain your market exposure.
Last year, I harvested about $8,200 in losses from an international fund that had underperformed. I used $5,000 to offset gains from a real estate investment and $3,000 to reduce my ordinary income. At my marginal rate, that saved about $1,980 in taxes. I reinvested in a different international fund the same day, so my portfolio allocation stayed nearly identical.
Move Three: Make Strategic Charitable Contributions
If you itemize deductions, charitable contributions directly reduce your taxable income. But even if you take the standard deduction – which most filers do since it increased in 2018 – there are strategies that can make charitable giving tax-efficient.
Donating appreciated stock instead of cash is one of the most powerful moves available. If you own a stock that has gained value, donating it directly to a charity allows you to deduct the full market value while avoiding capital gains tax on the appreciation. A stock you bought for $2,000 that is now worth $5,000 gives you a $5,000 deduction and eliminates $3,000 in taxable gains.
If your charitable giving in any single year is not large enough to exceed the standard deduction, consider bunching – concentrating two or more years of donations into a single year to exceed the threshold, then taking the standard deduction in the off years. A donor-advised fund makes this easy: you make a large contribution in the bunching year, take the deduction, and then distribute grants to charities over the following years.
Charitable giving tax strategies can transform generosity from a pure expense into a financial planning tool. The charities receive the same benefit, and you receive a meaningful tax reduction.
Move Four: Use Your FSA Before You Lose It
If you have a Flexible Spending Account (FSA) for healthcare or dependent care expenses, the money in it typically must be used by December 31, or you forfeit it. Some plans offer a grace period through March 15 of the following year, and some allow a carryover of up to $640, but these features are not universal.
Check your FSA balance in October or November. If you have unused funds, schedule medical appointments, buy prescription glasses or contacts, stock up on eligible over-the-counter items, or get dental work done before the deadline.
FSA contributions are pre-tax, meaning they reduce your taxable income. But that benefit disappears if the money goes unspent. Forfeiting FSA funds is essentially giving yourself a pay cut, and it happens to millions of Americans every year simply because they lose track of deadlines.
Health Savings Accounts, by contrast, have no use-it-or-lose-it provision – funds roll over indefinitely and can be invested for long-term growth. If your health plan qualifies, maximizing HSA contributions ($4,300 for individuals, $8,550 for families in 2026) provides a triple tax benefit: deductible contributions, tax-free growth, and tax-free withdrawals for medical expenses.
Move Five: Review Your Withholding
If you consistently owe money at tax time or receive a large refund, your withholding is wrong in either direction. Owing a large amount can trigger penalties. Receiving a large refund means you gave the government an interest-free loan all year.
The goal is to match your withholding as closely as possible to your actual tax liability. Use the IRS Tax Withholding Estimator with your most recent pay stub and an estimate of your year-end income. If the estimator shows you are significantly over- or under-withheld, submit a new W-4 to your employer before the final pay periods of the year.
Adjusting withholding in November or December can still make a meaningful difference. If you are under-withheld and heading for a tax bill, increasing withholding in the final paychecks can reduce or eliminate penalties because the IRS treats withholding as if it were paid evenly throughout the year – even if it all came from December paychecks.
If you had a life change during the year – a new job, marriage, divorce, a new child, or a home purchase – your withholding almost certainly needs to be updated. These events significantly change your tax situation, and the default withholding set at the beginning of the year may no longer be appropriate.
The Bonus Moves For Higher Earners
If your income is above $200,000, additional strategies come into play. Qualified business income deductions, backdoor Roth IRA contributions, mega backdoor Roth strategies through employer plans, and net investment income tax planning all have year-end components that require attention.
For self-employed individuals, establishing and funding a SEP IRA or Solo 401(k) before year-end can shelter significant income from taxes. A Solo 401(k) allows combined contributions of up to $69,000 in 2026 for those over 50 – a massive tax deduction for business owners with strong income years.
Do Not Wait Until December 28
The biggest mistake I see is procrastination. People know these strategies exist, but push them too late – to December – when brokerages are processing high volumes, employer payroll departments have limited bandwidth, and charitable organizations may not process gifts in time.
Start your year-end tax review in October. Run the numbers in November. Execute the moves by mid-December. That timeline gives you enough room to handle complications without missing deadlines.
Tax planning is not about gaming the system. It is about using the provisions Congress created specifically to encourage saving, investing, and giving. Every dollar you save in taxes is a dollar you can put to work building your financial future. The rules are there for you – but they only work if you act before the clock runs out.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. ZeroHedge does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. ZeroHedge holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.
China Unveils Nuclear-Powered Floating Hub For Green Shipping
China has proposed a large offshore logistics platform powered by nuclear energy that would function as both a cargo transfer hub and a refuelling/charging centre for ships,according to the South China Morning Post.
The concept, unveiled by Jiangnan Shipyard, combines port infrastructure, energy generation, and cargo handling into a single floating facility aimed at reducing emissions in maritime transport.
The project was presented at the Posidonia International Shipping Exhibition in Greece.
The SCMP writes that the platform would rely on a molten salt reactor as its primary energy source, supplemented by renewable technologies including solar and wind power. It would also feature systems for hydrogen production, synthetic green fuels, and electricity distribution. According to the company, the facility could generate clean power and fuels such as ammonia for both terminal operations and electric support vessels.
Jiangnan argues that molten salt reactor technology offers significant safety benefits because it is resistant to conventional meltdown scenarios and the coolant solidifies quickly if released, limiting the potential impact of leaks.
Designed to support international shipping lanes, coastal transport links, and cargo transshipment, the floating hub could also be replicated at other strategic ports thanks to its modular design.
The proposal builds on Jiangnan’s ongoing work in nuclear-powered shipping. In 2024, the company revealed plans for a large container vessel powered by a thorium-based molten salt reactor. Meanwhile, Chinese scientists have continued advancing the technology, recently demonstrating a successful conversion of thorium into uranium fuel within a molten salt reactor system. Thorium is widely viewed as a more abundant alternative to conventional uranium fuel.
Is Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) a mole for the National Rifle Association (NRA)? After the recent scandal involving the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), some may wonder given a curious turn of events in Virginia. Gun sales have surged after Spanberger and the Democrats passed sweeping gun bans. Spanberger also issued a public statement that could help tank the legislation in court — resulting in the striking down of the law (or parts of the law) after spurring record gun sales.
After July 1st, it will be a misdemeanor to buy, sell, transfer, or make an “assault firearm.”
With a July 1 deadline looming, background checks and sales are surging in Virginia. Stores are reporting that they cannot keep weapons on the shelves as Virginians flood stores to beat the deadline.
State Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Dunn Loring, a Spanberger ally who introduced the bill, further fueled the panic by declaring that the legislation will “gradually” take these guns because these firearms “do not belong on our streets.”
Gun rights groups have long challenged the claims of Democratic leaders on these guns.
As I have previously written, these calls often appear entirely disconnected from the actual crime or the constitutional protections afforded gun owners, including President Biden demanding a ban on assault weapons after a shooting with a handgun. Biden and others often collectively call these guns “assault weapons,” a standard reference to such popular models as the AR-15.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. These AR-15s clearly are not being purchased for armored deer. Many are purchased for personal and home protection; it is also popular for target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun by caliber; many guns have equal or greater calibers.
That is why laws banning or curtailing the sale of the AR-15 would likely run into constitutional barriers.
The challenges to the Virginia law were greatly assisted by Spanberger herself, who admitted that the law would ban commonly used hunting guns. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling inDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
So, media reports indicate that, since January, the number of background checks has skyrocketed with 75,376 background checks in May alone, more than double the amount in May 2025.
The peak was reached in March when 79,846 background checks were done compared to only 47,069 last year. These citizens are going to make large payments for these guns and have a heightened interest in the political issue.
After adding tens of thousands of assault weapons to her state, Spanberger’s comments may then help greatly in striking down all or parts of the law.
Sequoia Partner Shaun Maguire: SpaceX’s New Millionaires Will Fund Pro-America Projects
SpaceX’s planned IPO next Friday will be a major wealth-creation event for current and former employees, including engineers, technicians, mariners, welders, and other salaried workers who have accumulated equity over the years.
Elite liberals who earned unproductive, ‘woke’ degrees and are drowning in $100,000 or more in student debt, working two jobs, won’t be able to stomach that the basic SpaceX welder working on Starship will become an overnight millionaire next Friday.
There will be thousands of new millionaires next Friday after the world’s largest IPO hits the Nasdaq. Some reports indicate that 4,000 new millionaires will be minted.
Of course, employees generally face lock-up periods before selling pre-IPO shares.
The Wall Street Journal spoke with several former employees expected to become overnight millionaires:
Maryellyn Musselman, a former SpaceX engineering officer on rocket-recovery vessels, put 10% of her paycheck into company equity and may use the proceeds to start a repair business in Virginia.
Juan Hernandez, a former SpaceX welder who started as a contractor at $28 an hour, used earlier share sales to buy Texas properties and build a real estate business with his wife. His remaining stake is worth about $880,000 at the IPO price.
As for what some of these newly minted millionaires will do with their wealth, Shaun Maguire of Sequoia Capital told Molly O’Shea of the Sourcery podcast:
“There’s this meme that wives of tech billionaires go on to do NGOs and fund bad causes—SpaceX will be the literal opposite.”
“These people are going to do the most amazing things with their money.”
“Most people that joined SpaceX over 15 years ago—they did it for the mission. Because they love space, and want to build rockets. They want to work with their hands and want to keep America competitive in the space industry.”
“It’s self-selected. The people that were there early didn’t think it would ever become this big of a company. They didn’t do it to get rich. And they got rich very slowly, with very real skills and real experience of how much of the world is designed to take money and do bad things with it.”
“This group of people—we’re going to see more beautiful travertine sculptures in cities, just for public art.”
“I think we’re going to see a lot of physical whimsy out of the SpaceX crew.”
Watch
.@shaunmmaguire on what SpaceX employees are going to do with their new wealth from the SpaceX IPO:
“There’s this meme that wives of tech billionaires go on to do NGOs and fund bad causes—SpaceX will be the literal opposite.”
The hope is that SpaceX’s new millionaire class will channel some of its wealth into pro-America civic projects, public art, tech startups, and actual nonprofits that help citizens, rather than into the current left-wing nonprofit sphere bankrolled by the Democratic Party’s left-wing billionaire class, which has a strange obsession with pushing revolutionary Marxism, undermining capitalism, and destroying the nation from within.
A nonprofit organization led by prominent Trump critic Norm Eisen quietly assisted Democratic attorneys general and prosecutors in efforts targeting supporters of President Donald Trump who challenged the 2020 election, according to internal memos, contracts and public records released under open records laws.
The documents reveal that Eisen’s States United Democracy Center (SUDC) provided legal assistance, strategic guidance and, in at least one case, attorneys formally appointed by a state attorney general to aid investigations and prosecutions involving alternate electors and attorneys connected to Trump’s post-election challenges.
Legal experts argue the arrangement blurred the line between government prosecutions and outside political advocacy groups.
“This is highly inappropriate for left-wing nonprofits to become the prosecutors against their political enemies,” Mike Davis, a former Senate Judiciary Committee lawyer and founder of the Article III Project, told Just the News.
SUDC describes itself as a nonpartisan organization focused on protecting elections and the rule of law. However, critics point to the group’s connections to Democratic political organizations and its founder’s public campaign against Trump.
Eisen, a former ambassador in the Obama administration, has been one of Trump’s most outspoken critics and publicly supported efforts to prosecute the president. He also co-authored a 2023 New York Times essay titled “How to convict Trump.”
According to tax filings, SUDC paid more than $100,000 to Democratic attorney Marc Elias’ law firm as an independent contractor. The organization also traces its origins to the Voter Protection Program, which was launched as an initiative of the Progressive State Leaders Committee.
Tax records show the Progressive State Leaders Committee has extensive ties to the Democratic Attorneys General Association (DAGA.)
The documents detail how Democratic attorneys general in several states worked with SUDC as investigations into Trump electors and election-related legal challenges intensified.
In Minnesota, Attorney General Keith Ellison formally appointed SUDC Senior Vice President of Legal Christine Sun and the organization itself as “Special Attorneys to serve at the pleasure of the Attorney General specifically to provide legal services to the Attorney General.”
Under the arrangement, SUDC attorneys were required to comply with state transparency laws and were prohibited from speaking publicly about their work without approval from the attorney general’s office.
The appointment effectively placed donor-funded outside lawyers into an official law enforcement role within the state government.
In Arizona, records show Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office accepted an offer from SUDC to provide pro bono legal assistance related to election matters.
The organization’s involvement became public after an internal memorandum was inadvertently disclosed to attorneys representing Arizona electors.
According to a December 2024 email from Senior Litigation Counsel Kimberly Hunley, a July 2023 SUDC memorandum had been attached to several search warrant applications.
Hunley acknowledged that the state “did not intend to provide the July 25, 2023, memorandum” and instead meant to provide only a publicly available document from States United.
The 47-page memorandum reportedly analyzed potential criminal violations related to Arizona’s alternate electors and outlined possible defenses that could be raised by those under investigation.
Documents from Michigan and Nevada also indicate SUDC coordinated with state attorneys general through common-interest agreements and provided legal assistance related to election litigation and investigations.
In Michigan, records previously obtained through public records requests showed communications between SUDC attorneys and state officials concerning election-related legal strategies.
In Nevada, Attorney General Aaron Ford signed an agreement allowing SUDC to provide pro bono legal services through 2025.
Supporters of SUDC have maintained that the organization provides lawful legal assistance to public officials seeking to uphold election laws and democratic institutions.
Mystery Car Bombing Near Moscow May Have Taken Out A Top General
In what appears the latest targeted killing in a string of high profile assassinations of top Russian military brass since the Ukraine war began, an unidentified man – possibly a high-ranking military officer, was reportedly blown up Tuesday morning after a bomb detonated in his car.
The incident happened very early in the morning Tuesday in a suburb called Balashikha, just outside the Russian capital. While Russian authorities have yet to release the identity of the deceased man, it happened very near an area known to host residences of military and government officials.
“The location of Tuesday’s explosion is not far from where Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik — the deputy head of the General Staff’s main operational directorate — was killed in a car bombing last year,” the Amsterdam-based Moscow Times writes.
Investigators said an “explosive device was detonated while a BMW X3 car was driving near a residential apartment building.”
In this newest case, the speculation on Telegram is that the fatality was a 62-year-old lieutenant general. A formal investigation is underway:
Security camera footage circulated by pro-Kremlin media showed the vehicle bursting into flames from the trunk and back seats before rolling into a parked vehicle. According to the Telegram channel Mash, bystanders rushed to pull the driver out of the burning wreckage, but he died shortly after.
Russia’s internal security service, the FSB, previously said it is making great efforts to tighten around high-ranking military officers of late.
This possibly adds, pending the details, to a growing list of high profile assassinations related to the Ukraine war. To review:
—Darya Dugina was killed in a car bombing in 2022 which was likely meant for her father, prominent political thinker and often dubbed “Putin ally” Aleksandr Dugin.
—Gen Igor Kirillov died in December 2024 outside of his residence when a bomb planted in a nearby scooter detonated.
—Gen Yaroslav Moskalik, who served asdeputy head of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, was killed in a car bomb attack last April. A “homemade” explosive device detonated under his Volkswagen Golf in a residential neighborhood.
Throughout the course of the war there’s been a string of these high profile assassinations on Russian soil involving car and even cafe bombs.
A series of car explosions in Moscow
Two vehicles have been blown up in the Russian capital today. In one of the explosions, a 62-year-old lieutenant general was killed.
The blasts occurred in residential districts where Russian military personnel and their families live. The… pic.twitter.com/999GJ2Brxm
The cafe bombing had happened in April 2023, and killed prominent pro-Kremlin blogger and war correspondent Vladlen Tatarsky. The blast at a St. Petersburg cafe during a close-quarters speaking event wounded some two dozen bystanders, six of them critically.
America’s CIA or Britain’s MI6 has long been suspected of being involved in these targeted killings, or at least assisting in such brazen Ukrainian-linked operations, but ultimately little has been uncovered or proven in terms of a potential Western hidden hand in this ongoing ‘dirty war’.
Four California public school districts face federal inquiries into whether their policies and practices regarding instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology violate students’ civil rights.
The districts under Justice Department review are all in Northern California, with three in Monterey County—Graves Elementary School District, Santa Rita Union School District, and Soledad Unified School District—as well as San Francisco Unified School District. Their students range from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade.
The reviews will determine whether the districts notify parents of their right to opt their children out of instruction on sexual orientation and gender ideology, also known as SOGI, and whether district practices align with federal protections against sex discrimination.
“This Department of Justice will not tolerate local school authorities trampling on the rights of parents concerning the education of their children,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the department’s Civil Rights Division said in a June 8 statement.
“The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in ‘Mahmoud’ and ‘Mirabelli’ have put all school districts on notice: policies that keep parents in the dark about sexuality and gender ideology in the classroom must end now.”
California law mandates sex education to encompass these topics, and state provisions give parents the right to opt their children out of the instruction on these subjects, either entirely or in part.
The San Francisco Unified School District has previously told its teachers that neither parental permission nor notification is needed to teach or discuss SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) topics in the classroom.
In addition, SOGI topics “appear to be embedded in California’s social studies and history classes,” according to the DOJ statement.
The reviews will also cover policies permitting access to single-sex intimate spaces such as bathrooms and locker rooms, in addition to girls’ sports teams, based on a student’s perceived gender identity rather than sex. The Justice Department will decide whether these policies are in compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The four districts all receive federal taxpayer funding, subjecting them to Title IX’s prohibitions on sex discrimination in education programs and activities.
The department will evaluate whether the districts have enacted changes in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Mirabelli v. Bonta.
“Plaintiffs alleged that California’s policies permitted disclosure of a student’s gender transitioning at school only if the student consented,” the ruling states.
“Plaintiffs claimed that these policies violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“We conclude that the parents who seek religious exemptions are likely to succeed on the merits of their Free Exercise Clause claim.”
The Mirabelli ruling struck down a California policy that had required teachers to keep students’ gender identity requests from parents, citing the earlier Mahmoud v. Taylor decision on parental authority in public schools.
This action in California mirrors similar compliance reviews the Justice Department conducted last month into 36 school districts in Illinois. Those reviews looked into whether sexual orientation and gender ideology content was taught in pre-K through 12th-grade classes, and if parents were properly notified of their opt-out rights.
