Authored by Edward Ring via American Greatness,

California has declared war on its middle class, and the special interests controlling the state are doing everything they can to impose this punitive economic model on the rest of America. It’s a quasi-feudal system, with the entire population divided into aristocrats and serfs. The means to destroy the middle class is to engineer an unaffordable cost of living for households, and a regulatory environment that only huge corporations can afford to navigate. The moral justification for this destruction is to cope with the “climate emergency” and to achieve social “equity.”

While the Trump interregnum has slowed the march of neo-feudalism in the rest of America, in California, the plan continues to move relentlessly forward. If you’re extremely wealthy, California’s abusive cost of living is not a big concern, and you stay for the scenic beauty and abundant sunshine. If you’re extremely poor, you stay because California’s taxpayer-funded assistance programs—financial aid, food assistance, healthcare, and other support services—offer a lifestyle orders of magnitude better than what you may have previously endured in the barrios of Tegucigalpa or the suburbios of Maputo.

But if you’re not rich, and you’re not poor, but just work, pay taxes, and pay for everything you need with after-tax earnings and without government assistance, California is a hostile environment. The numbers on out-migration are unequivocal. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, an astonishing 8.5 million people have moved out of California since 2010. In 2023 alone, the last full year for which estimates are available, 690,000 people left. In 2022, 818,000; in 2021, 841,000. No other state has sustained anywhere near this 15 years of unrelenting mass exodus.

These people aren’t just leaving. By the millions, they’re being driven out. The latest reported cost of a home in California averages nearly $788,000 compared to $361,000 in the rest of the U.S. The price for a gallon of gasoline in California is roughly $5.00 compared to $3.00 nationwide. With refineries quitting production in California thanks to ridiculous and escalating regulatory harassment by state agencies, the price of gasoline is only going to rise. As for residential electricity rates, consumers in California have to pay around $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, a rate that is twice the national average.

This isn’t news. It costs a lot to live in California due to restrictions placed on housing and pretty much any enabling energy or water infrastructure by extreme environmentalists and the special interests that support them. It’s simple math. Homes cost twice as much. Gasoline costs nearly 60 percent more. Electricity costs twice as much. Double the cost of real estate and energy, and you double the cost of everything that needs real estate and energy to be produced.

And to ameliorate the problems they caused, California’s state legislature has indulged in a spending spree designed to shower benefits onto residents who can’t afford the overpriced necessities. It’s a good trick. Deny people the ability to make a living, blame a scapegoat (climate change, greedy corporations, billionaires, racism), and then distribute free stuff from the government in exchange for votes.

But massive government benefits are expensive for the state to maintain, with costs going into hyperdrive in the 21st century. Between 2010 and 2020, the per capita state government spending in California, adjusting for inflation, more than doubled. Since then, it’s continued to grow, with Newsom’s proposed 2025-26 state budget of $322 billion equating to $8,173 per resident. Back in 2011, in 2024 dollars, total state spending was only $4,696 per resident. Did anything get better? Schools? Crime rates? Homelessness? Affordability?

Meanwhile, the middle class pays. Not only via the cost of living, which they pay for in full since they’re not poor enough to qualify for free stuff from the government. They also pay higher taxes to support the swollen state. A lot more taxes.

Suppose a person works as an independent contractor in California and makes $100,000 per year in their regular job. They then work nights and weekends to make enough money to support their family. Let’s assume that second job doesn’t pay enough for their total annual income to exceed $176,100, which is the ceiling beyond which workers don’t have to contribute any further to Social Security (Medicare withholding has no limit). Here’s how bad these taxes get:

The marginal withholding rate for the State of California on income over $141,212 is 9.3 percent. Anything over $111,732 is taxed at 8.0 percent. Then there is federal tax of 22 percent on any income over $94,300, with Social Security and Medicare (for which an independent contractor pays the employee and the employer share) adding another whopping 15.3 percent. In all, the government taxes 46.6 percent of those last hard-earned dollars.

That’s how the State of California thanks an independent contractor who is working nights and weekends to make some extra money. Sure, the federal government takes most of it, and the federal government wastes trillions instead of merely wasting hundreds of billions. But other states don’t have California’s punitive cost of living, and in states with low or minimal state income taxes, the hit for federal income tax and Social Security/Medicare would be 37 percent, little more than a third of marginal earnings instead of nearly half.

And it doesn’t end there. Let’s have a look at sales taxes in Los Angeles County, where 9.7 million people live, 25 percent of the entire state’s population. The combined state and local sales tax rate is 9.75 percent, which means if the household in our example spent $2,000 per month on retail purchases, they’d be out another $2,340 annually. The average home in Los Angeles County costs $900,000, which means California’s supposedly low property tax rate of 1.0 percent still equates to another $9,000 per year in property taxes.

Most people in California haven’t mustered the degree of hard work and good luck it takes to make a six-figure income. The average annual salary in California is $68,917. For people making that amount of money, owning a home is an impossible dream. Just paying for gasoline and electricity is a hardship.

The betrayal that California’s state and local politicians have inflicted on the people living there is unforgivable. The state is run by a coalition of public sector unions, allied with environmentalist billionaires and the nonprofit advocacy groups they fund, and the monopolistic corporations that thrive in over-regulated environments that smaller competitors can’t survive. These aligned special interests pour billions into backing politicians who do what they’re told. The result is a bloated public sector and “green” industries profiting off of high prices and a captive market. And the established media—increasingly populated with indoctrinated youths straight out of union-controlled universities—marches in lockstep with this corrupt establishment, saying all the right things and controlling the narrative.

It’s easy enough to blame California’s voters for the predicament they’re in. Except that 40 percent of the electorate routinely votes against the one-party Democratic machine candidates. And the rest of them, certainly enough to swing the result away from Democrats, have been thoroughly indoctrinated by what is probably the most powerful political machine in America. They spend literally billions to foment nonstop fear of boiling oceans, burning forests, and genocidal Nazis lurking in every shadow. They hire the best behavioral scientists on earth to foment this paranoia. And it works. Never mind the price of gas; we have to save the planet and end racism.

California is a failed state. The only people of modest income who can possibly afford to live there are people who purchased their homes decades ago or people who inherited those homes from their parents and grandparents. Everyone else just works, all the time, and barely survives, or they give up and get government handouts.

Americans in the rest of the country need to thoroughly recognize the threat coming from California, because it is not obvious. The special interests running the state don’t merely deflect accountability by blaming the hardship they’ve engineered on climate and racism. They’ve also successfully conned voters into thinking that these special interests fight against each other, when in fact they are united. Public sector unions, billionaire-backed NGOs, and monopolistic corporations are not antagonists. These aligned groups share the same agenda, and they work together. To serve each of their varied interests, they intend to destroy the middle class in this country.

In California, they’ve succeeded in doing exactly that.

Over 40 investors in Vietnam’s solar and wind energy sector are warning they may default unless the government honors its original pricing commitments, according to Nikkei Asia. 

Vietnam had initially offered feed-in tariffs ranging from 7.09 to 9.35 U.S. cents per kWh for solar energy, valid for 20 years, to attract investment and support the country’s shift to renewable energy. However, the government now wants to pay in local currency at a rate equal to 4.7 U.S. cents per kWh—a cut of 34% to 50%, depending on the exchange rate.

Most affected projects are solar farms, and many investors have reported delayed or reduced payments from the state utility Electricity Vietnam (EVN). These delays stem from a government review claiming that key documentation—the construction completion acceptance (CCA)—was missing, despite not being required at the time.

Investors argue that most projects have since secured the document and paid related penalties.

In a letter sent on May 16 to top leaders including Communist Party chief To Lam and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh, the investors urged the government to protect what they described as Vietnam’s “contractual integrity, regulatory consistency, and the credibility” of its investment environment. They also warned that the dispute “poses serious and immediate risks to investor confidence, financial stability, and Vietnam’s long-term energy and climate objectives.”

Concerns have grown over EVN’s proposal to retroactively change terms, which could require investors to return past payments. One Vietnamese investor noted that while the rules have shifted, most developers are now in compliance.

The Nikkei report says that the letter—signed by more than 40 foreign and local investors representing a combined 6.38 gigawatts of capacity—also noted that over $13 billion in equity is at risk, including about $4 billion from foreign-led projects.

Signatories include Japan’s Fujiwara Energy and Toho Gas, Thailand’s B.Grimm Renewable and Super Energy, the Philippines’ ACEN, Portugal’s Sunseap, and the Netherlands’ SEP. The group warned that they are breaching loan agreements and face growing risks of default. According to the letter, the situation has led to cash flow problems affecting “plant maintenance, repairs, and operations,” threatening project sustainability and business operations overall.

Vietnam’s export-driven economy relies heavily on foreign capital and competitive energy prices. With growth expected to hit 8% this year and even higher in the coming years, the country is facing rising energy demand. Power outages in 2023 already rattled manufacturers and residents in the north.

EVN posted nearly $1 billion in losses last year, following an $800 million shortfall in 2022. Although it was still in deficit in the first half of 2024, price hikes eventually helped the utility return to profit by year’s end.

Authorities have so far maintained that only projects meeting all formal requirements are eligible for the favorable pricing.

Dominic Scriven, chairman of Dragon Capital, whose firm has 123 megawatts of solar affected by the changes, said the lack of clarity is already hurting both investor confidence and the stability of ongoing projects. He added that he hopes the government will act constructively to resolve the dispute.

Even companies without current feed-in-tariff projects are watching closely. Kengo Nagaki, deputy chief representative of Tokyo Gas in Vietnam, said that while his firm’s projects are not affected, “if this were to happen, it would be a concern for foreign investors.”

He emphasized that the government cannot meet its renewable energy targets without international investment.

Authored by Charles Kennedy via OilPrice.com,

• Following ExxonMobil’s massive 2017 oil discovery offshore Guyana, Venezuela has revived and intensified its claim over the Essequibo region.

• A series of cross-border attacks on Guyanese troops, including three on May 15, points to a potential Venezuelan strategy of deniable, Russia-style hybrid warfare.

• The U.S. has warned Venezuela that any attack on Guyana or ExxonMobil would carry serious consequences.

A quiet frontier in South America is rapidly becoming one of the world’s most volatile energy flashpoints.

The disputed region of Essequibo, a sparsely populated expanse administered by Guyana but claimed by Venezuela, has seen tensions simmer for years. But a combination of geopolitical ambition, economic desperation, and energy opportunity is now threatening to tip the standoff into open conflict.

At stake is one of the most valuable stretches of territory in the world—an area that, until recently, few outside the region had heard of.

Essequibo, which comprises nearly two-thirds of Guyana’s landmass, was thrust into the global spotlight after ExxonMobil’s 2017 discovery of the Stabroek Block offshore reserves, estimated at over 11 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

For Guyana the find transformed the country from economic backwater to a regional energy giant almost overnight.

The newfound wealth has also revived Venezuela’s long-standing claim to the region, a grievance dating back to colonial arbitration rulings of the late 19th century. Caracas has never fully relinquished its claim, but it was only after the oil discovery that Venezuela began actively pressing the issue. Since 2022, under President Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela has dramatically escalated its rhetoric and actions—announcing referenda, redrawing maps, and even moving military assets toward the border.

Most alarmingly, Venezuela has begun to mimic the playbook of its closest geopolitical ally—Russia. Much like Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea using unmarked “little green men,” Venezuela appears to be laying the groundwork for a slow, deniable incursion into Essequibo. The playbook combines official rhetoric with irregular warfare tactics, allowing for plausible deniability while steadily undermining Guyana’s control.

The first major signal of this new phase came last year when Maduro’s government held a referendum to “reclaim” Essequibo. Despite international condemnation, the vote passed and led to the formal creation of a new Venezuelan “state” encompassing the territory. Venezuela began offering citizenship to Essequibo’s residents and launched efforts to organize elections in the region.

In March 2025, a Venezuelan naval gunboat intercepted ExxonMobil operations in Guyanese waters, accusing the U.S. oil major of encroaching on Venezuelan territory.

The incident was widely seen as a warning shot—not just to Exxon, but to any foreign investors backing Guyana’s energy future.

But the most ominous sign yet came on May 15, when Guyana’s military reported three armed attacks in a single day on its patrols along the Cuyuni River, a critical stretch of the Guyana–Venezuela border. According to the Guyana Defence Force, unidentified gunmen in civilian clothing opened fire on soldiers in three separate engagements. No casualties were reported, and the Guyanese military responded with what it described as “measured force.”

The attacks were chilling in their timing and coordination. While the assailants were not officially identified, officials in Georgetown and most international observers believe they were Venezuelan operatives or proxies acting on Caracas’s behalf. The region is not known for organized crime or guerrilla activity, and no local insurgency has taken root—at least not yet.

This wasn’t the first time violence erupted in the contested zone. In February, another attack left two Guyanese soldiers critically injured. That incident, too, was blamed on Venezuela-linked forces. 

While the skirmishes may seem minor in isolation, taken together they mark a dangerous pattern of escalation. What’s emerging is a shadow conflict—gray-zone warfare that avoids the threshold of open war while steadily eroding Guyana’s control over Essequibo. The danger, analysts warn, is that this slow-motion campaign could culminate in a de facto annexation, much like Crimea, before the international community has time to respond.

The Guyana Defence Force fields just over 3,000 active personnel with limited air, land, and naval capabilities. Venezuela, by contrast, commands over 100,000 troops, around 200 tanks, dozens of combat aircraft, and a sizable paramilitary force—making any conventional war a one-sided affair.

However, during a visit to Georgetown in March, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cautioned that any Venezuelan attack on Guyana or ExxonMobil would mark “a very bad day” for Caracas, hinting at serious consequences. Venezuela swiftly condemned the remarks.

The real question now is how the international community, and especially the United States, will respond. ExxonMobil’s deep involvement gives Washington both an interest and a stake in the dispute. But the broader issue goes beyond oil. A successful Venezuelan land grab would further erode the already fragile post-Cold War order. It would also send a message to authoritarian regimes worldwide: territorial revisionism is back—and it works.

Guyana has vowed to defend its sovereignty and is seeking stronger security partnerships.

But unless it receives military support or any other type of real security guarantee from the U.S., Georgetown will struggle to hold the line alone.

For now, Essequibo remains under Guyana’s flag. But the shadow of Caracas is growing—and so is the risk that South America’s next war may erupt in one of its least known, but most strategically vital, regions.

A US federal court has just ruled President Trump does not have the authority under economic emergency legislation to impose sweeping global tariffs.

“The challenged Tariff Orders will be vacated and their operation permanently enjoined,” the court said.

The ruling from a three-judge panel came after several lawsuits arguing Trump has exceeded his authority, left U.S. trade policy dependent on his whims and unleashed economic chaos.

At least seven lawsuits are challenging the tariffs, the centerpiece of Trump’s trade policy.

The ruling can now be appealed by the Trump administration in federal court.

Just remind us again, what is it that the President can actually do?

Futures soared higher on the news (extending the post-NVDA euphoria)…

The dollar is surging and gold falling…

Developing…

“This is a clear message and a continuation of our policy: Whoever fires at the State of Israel will pay a heavy price.” That’s Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz’s fresh warning issued after recent Houthi ballistic missile launches targeting Israel.

Houthi-affiliated news outlet Al Masirah TV reported on Wednesday that fresh Israeli attacks have destroyed a main runway at Sanaa International Airport. This was in apparent retaliation for two Houthi missiles fired on Israel the day prior, at a moment Yemeni military leadership (Ansarallah) has vowed it will remain undeterred in support of Gaza.

Civilian planes of national operator Yemenia Airways were also destroyed, as some photos have confirmed, with Khaled al-Shaief, general director of the airport, stating that all civilian planes have been completely destroyed.

He has cited some $500 million in losses and described, “The enemy destroyed the terminals at Sanaa airport, including all equipment and devices.” He added that a warehouse has been “completely leveled” – with Yemenia Airways losing three planes in the fresh attack, brining to total number of destroyed airliners to six.

Al Jazeera says that one of the newly destroyed Yemenia planes was scheduled to take those performing the Muslim Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia – and it doesn’t appear there are any ‘alternative’ flights.

But Katz dismissed these as Houthi “terror targets” while confirming that the Israeli Air Force has “destroyed the last aircraft remaining.” Tel Aviv has long alleged that Sanaa airport doubles as a Houthi and Iranian military transport hub.

It looks as if each side will simply continue trading tit-for-tat blows, but civilians will continue to suffer – and civilian aviation in the whole region could be impacted. Neither is backing down.

Israel has vowed to decapitate Houthi leadership, saying it will hunt down and eliminate Abdul-Malik al-Houthi in Yemen, along with his top military officials.

Footage shows the airport as a wasteland of twisted vehicle & airliner parts and burnt-out buildings:

💥 ISRAELI AIRSTRIKE ON YEMEN AIRPORT CAUSES $500 MILLION IN DAMAGES; HOUTHI NEGOTIATOR CONFIRMS ATTACKS ON ISRAEL TO CONTINUE DESPITE US AGREEMENT; BALLISTIC MISSILE LAUNCHED TOWARDS ISRAEL

💥 The director of Sanaa International Airport, Khaled al-Shaief, announced that… pic.twitter.com/eJrlIpcWIA

— AnimalFarm1945 (@Farm1945A) May 7, 2025

But short of an actual ground war, which Israel doesn’t have the stomach for – also given ongoing Gaza operations – taking out Houthi leadership and infrastructure will be easier said than done.

Authored by Connor O’Keefe via The Mises Institute,

As President Trump wrestles to deliver on his campaign promise to end the war on Ukraine by helping to bring about a negotiated peace deal, the effort has, in part, been undermined by an escalating exchange of kamikaze drones by both sides.

The last week especially saw a sharp escalation, with Ukraine launching thousands of drones deep into Russia—most of which the Russians claim to have intercepted—and Russia, in turn, stepping up its drone attacks in Ukraine. The Russian strikes over the weekend got a lot of coverage in the American media, especially an aerial assault on Saturday night where parts of some of the largest drone swarms launched in the war so far hit residential buildings around the Ukrainian armament factories Russia claimed to be targeting.

That series of strikes led Trump to issue his sharpest rebuke of Vladamir Putin to date. He called the Russian president crazy and voiced frustration with how Putin has changed since their phone call together—after which Trump had characterized Putin as reasonable and interested in a ceasefire.

The establishment press gleefully seized on Trump’s comments to argue that even he is now waking up to what they’ve been saying this whole time: that Putin is an unhinged maniac who cannot be reasoned with because he is motivated solely by bloodlust and delusions of conquering Europe. They then, predictably, bring it back to their broader argument that Trump’s “naïve” effort to “appease” Putin with a peace agreement and then “retreat from Europe” to usher in a new age of American isolationism is futile and dangerous and that he ought to instead recommit to the establishment’s preferred strategy of heavy-handed interventionism.

It is true that the Trump administration’s attempt to kickstart negotiations to end the war in Ukraine has run into difficulties that make it unlikely a ceasefire will be reached soon. But that is not an argument in favor of the political establishment’s interventionism, as that is the very thing that brought about this difficult situation in the first place.

Much has been written on the decades between the collapse of the USSR and the rise of the Western-friendly Russian Federation and the eventual return of Cold War conditions encapsulated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. There is plenty of debate about the details and consequences of decisions made along the way. But nobody with any real credibility is even trying to argue that this period was characterized by a lack of US meddling in Eastern Europe.

Washington was heavily involved in the region from the beginning. At first, it was all under the friendly guise of helping with the transition from communism to capitalism. But as that process was botched by a combination of statist Western economists—who thought free markets had to be organized and managed in a top-down fashion—and outright corruption by officials on all sides, the respect, admiration, and trust the American government enjoyed in much of the region began to fade away.

That was accelerated when US presidents began working to expand NATO, the anti-Soviet military alliance, up to Russia’s border. For Russia’s entire history, the lack of natural barriers between Moscow and the rest of Europe has been a source of tremendous anxiety for Russian leaders. No mountains or major waterways blocked the armies of Napoleon and, later, Hitler from marching directly into the Russian heartland. The only factor that doomed both of those invasions was distance.

Even in the age of nuclear weapons, when long infantry supply chains are less relevant, the greater the distance a ballistic missile needs to travel to reach Russian cities, the more time the Russian regime has to detect, assess, and respond. Distance is still a factor in their defense strategy.

US officials knew this and still chose to help NATO expand closer and closer to Moscow. They were even told explicitly by the US ambassador to Russia that working to bring Ukraine, specifically, into NATO would almost certainly cause Russia to invade Ukraine.

Virtually every major American Cold War strategist was vocally against NATO expansion because they saw it as a surefire way to unnecessarily restart the US-Russia conflict that had just miraculously ended without nuclear annihilation. But they were out-lobbied and out-maneuvered by the weapons companies that produce all the military hardware that new NATO countries are required to buy.

So NATO expanded, American military hardware moved east, and anti-government protests in countries aligned with Russia received funding and support from the American government.

Even if we accept the establishment’s argument that Putin doesn’t actually care if the US pours weapons into and arranges security guarantees with the countries right on his border and is only using those actions as an excuse to further his imperial ambitions, US officials still handed Putin an easy way to get the Russian public onboard with an invasion of Ukraine for no real reason whatsoever.

Then, tragically, after the invasion happened, US officials and their allies in Western European governments like the UK convinced the Ukrainians to abandon an early peace agreement that would have resulted in Russian forces pulling back to pre-invasion boundaries. In the years since, Russia has laid permanent claim to much of the eastern Ukrainian territory they had earlier agreed to relinquish. And the Ukrainian government has continuously lost leverage over its Russian occupiers as they tried and failed to drive them out by force.

Last summer, Ukraine made the surprising decision to draw soldiers and resources away from the front lines to conduct a small invasion in Russia’s Kursk region on Ukraine’s northern border. That operation may have been an attempt to regain some leverage in future negotiations. But it did not accomplish much, and Russia has since retaken virtually all the territory they lost. The transfer of Ukrainian troops and resources has now given the Russians momentum on the rest of the front.

That is why it is unlikely that a peace agreement will be reached in the near future. Because it appears that Russia can achieve more if it continues fighting than through negotiations. And, importantly, that is not because the US and its European allies have held back and avoided giving the Ukrainians what they needed to fight the Russians. It’s because the officials who recognized the West’s leverage in future negotiations would only get worse lost out to those who thought the war should be prolonged anyway because it was a good way to “weaken Russia” without risking American lives.

There is no easy path out of this mess. It’s not as if NATO governments have some special weapons system they haven’t sent to Ukraine yet that could begin to turn the tide of the war. If they had, they would have sent it already. Short of sending American troops into combat with the Russians, there is little more that can be done to prop up Ukrainian forces. And, as Scott Horton noted in his recent talk here at the Mises Institute, even if Trump genuinely tried to reverse course and repair relations between Washington and Moscow, the Russians would probably just assume, understandably, that any progress he made would be undone by the next Democrat to win the presidency.

That’s why, if we’re ever going to see a true end to this unnecessary second Cold War with Russia, it requires that more Americans understand how it truly came about in the first place. It needs to be widely understood that if our government’s priority were really keeping us safe, they would have done everything in their power to avoid kickstarting a new conflict with the most heavily nuclear-armed government in the world. And yet, they seemed to have done the precise opposite.

What the path out certainly does not involve is doubling down on the same exact policies that both created this mess in the first place and that are being championed by those who want to see this war drag on indefinitely in a vile attempt to use Ukrainians to weaken Russia a little bit more.

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he has told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to not attack Iran, or at least to hold off any preemptive action to give more time for Washington and Tehran to forge a nuclear agreement.

“Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes, I did. Next question, please?”…and also: “I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we’re very close to a solution,” Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about the issue.

Q: “On Iran, did you warn Prime Minister Netanyahu against taking some sort of actions that could disrupt the talks there in a phone call last week?”

President Trump: “Well, I’d like to be honest. Yes I did.” pic.twitter.com/yoXB3t90SZ

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 28, 2025

“It’s not a warning,” Trump added. “I said, ‘I don’t think it’s appropriate.’ I just said I don’t think it’s appropriate. We’re having very good discussions with them, and I don’t think it’s appropriate right now.”

The question to Trump was prompted by an Axios report published the day prior:

President Trump cautioned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a phone call last week not to take any action that could jeopardize negotiations between the U.S. and Iran on a new nuclear deal, a White House official and a source familiar with the details tell Axios.

Trump’s message was “he doesn’t want him to antagonize at a time when he is trying to solve problems,” the official said.

Trump also repeated his tone optimism on the talks, telling reporters, “We’re doing very well with Iran.”

The White House’s messaging to Israel has been to say “stay united and let this process play out” – and that the process needs some time. Of course, Trump has still warned that “other options” are on the table should Tehran refuse to make progress.

The Iranians have said they are willing to guarantee (and allow monitoring) that uranium enrichment is only for peaceful nuclear energy production, and will pledge no development of nukes. Critics of Trump point that this was essentially the 2015 JCPOA nuclear which the first Trump administration pulled out of in April 2018.

Plenty of indirect ‘threats’ were peppered into Trump’s Wednesday Iran comments:

He seems to suggest that his conditions for a deal with Iran include the US being allowed to come in and “take whatever we want, we can blow up whatever we want.” Seems unlikely that Iran would consent for the US to come in and “blow up” its infrastructure pic.twitter.com/jxHUM8oljw

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) May 28, 2025

Also on Wednesday, the head of the United Nations’ atomic watchdog, the IAEA’s Rafael Mariano Grossi, said that “the jury is still out” on negotiations. “For the moment, the jury is still out. We don’t know whether there’s going to be an agreement or not,” Grossi told journalists in Vienna.

“I think that is an indication of a willingness to come to an agreement. And I think that, in and by itself, is something possible,” he added of ongoing meetings.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The FBI is investigating after officials said a religious event in Seattle was disrupted by violence, a top FBI official said on May 27.

“We have asked our team to fully investigate allegations of targeted violence against religious groups at the Seattle concert,” Dan Bongino, the FBI’s deputy director, said on social media platform X. “Freedom of religion isn’t a suggestion.”

The office of Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Organizers said the May 24 event was held at Cal Anderson Park in support of “the sanctity of human life, the sacrality of biological gender, the importance of the nuclear family, and the right to freedom of speech and religion.”

They said the movement organizing the event stands against indoctrination of children “by a liberal, political, and sexual agenda that seeks to destroy their God-given identities.”

Counterprotesters, including the Freedom Socialist Party, said their demonstration was meant to “keep your bibles off our bodies.”

Clashes at the event resulted in 23 arrests, the Seattle Police Department said. One juvenile was released. The rest of those arrested were charged with assault and obstruction.

The White House Faith Office said in a statement on Tuesday that it condemned “the violent disruption of Seattle’s MayDay USA worship event.”

“We affirm the fundamental rights to free speech and religious freedom for all Americans, as protected by federal law. Public officials must protect the inalienable rights of all citizens, regardless of their faith or religious beliefs. We urge the City of Seattle to uphold these rights at all faith-based events, safeguarding the ability of people of faith to gather and express their beliefs without fear of harassment or violence,” the office said.

After the event, Harrell, a Democrat, called it a “far-right rally” that he said was meant “to provoke a reaction by promoting beliefs that are inherently opposed to our city’s values, in the heart of Seattle’s most prominent LGBTQ+ neighborhood.”

He said that anarchists infiltrated counterprotesters and “inspired violence,” which led to officers making arrests and asking organizers to end the event early. The request was accepted.

Organizers said in a statement to news outlets that “under Mayor Harrell’s leadership, the city of Seattle has continued its spiral into lawlessness and dysfunction while the First Amendment rights of citizens to peacefully assemble has been disregarded.”

The Seattle mayor’s office later released statements from some faith leaders that offered support for Harrell and criticized the event organizers.

Russell Johnson, the lead pastor at Pursuit NW, said on X that Harrell should apologize to Christians in the state “for his bigoted remarks after folks who were holding a peaceful worship event at Cal Anderson Park were violently assaulted for the high crime of expressing their deeply held religious beliefs in the form of a permitted worship event on city property.”

Authored by Ibrahim Garza via The College Fix,

A Yale University dean emailed the entire Divinity School a copy of his MSNBC essay criticizing President Donald Trump, according to an email recently obtained by The College Fix.

But the email is just the latest example of bias against conservatives, according to a concerned student.

“Trump’s USAID cuts are anti-Christian at the core,” Dean Gregory Sterling wrote in an opinion piece for MSNBC.

The article criticized President Trump for downsizing the United States Agency for International Development, saying it went against the teachings of Christianity.

Dean Sterling (pictured above) shared the essay with the Divinity School.

“Greetings. I am writing today to share a new commentary piece I have published at MSNBC,” the email stated.

“The article represents my effort to call attention to the anti-Christian nature of efforts by our government to eliminate or drastically reduce humanitarian work domestically and abroad, and to reach the broad public with the message that Christianity is more than the picture they are probably forming from politics and media.”

The message ended with Sterling stating:

“I know that you share my concern.”

Despite multiple requests for comment, neither Dean Sterling nor Yale Divinity School have responded.

Sterling’s biography shares how under his leadership, the divinity school “tripled the number of faculty from underrepresented groups and doubled the number of staff and students from diverse backgrounds.”

A Yale Divinity School student, who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of backlash, said “taxpayers would be upset knowing that left-wing propaganda is being pushed…by administrators at so-called elite schools.”

“I wanted to believe that these schools still had immense value, but their value lies not in their curriculum nor in the administration, only in the extracurricular events you get to attend with alumni and successful people in their field,” the student, a conservative Catholic, told The Fix.

“The name ‘Yale’ carries with it a lot of prestige, and I hope that there are changes made in the free exchange of ideas to actually honor that perception.”

The student stated that this email confirmed concerns that Yale is biased against conservatives – however this experience has “strengthened” the student’s support for the Trump administration and its direct action against elite universities.

“When Dean Sterling shared his article on MSNBC, it confirmed to me that Yale Divinity School isn’t a politically neutral institution and talking openly about being a conservative isn’t an option, unless you want to get ostracized by your peers,” the student said.

“It’s deeply disappointing as a student and has strengthened my support for the Trump Administration cutting federal funding for Ivy League institutions.”

Data supports the student’s view that the university leans left.

For example, 97 percent of faculty donations in the 2024 election went to Democratic candidates, according to the Buckley Institute, a conservative Yale group. In the social sciences and humanities, Democratic professors outnumber Republicans 78 to 1, the Buckley Institute found. The total ratio is 28 to 1, according to the Buckley Institute.

The conservative group also criticized a new “Trust in Higher Education” committee formed by Yale President Maurie McInnis.

The committee seeks to address declining public confidence through “open discourse and self-reflection” however the committee has no Republican representation.

“Yale President Maurie McInnis deserves recognition for trying to address the loss of trust in higher education. At the same time, creating a committee that is 70% Democrat and has zero Republicans is a poor way of doing it,” the Buckley Institute commented in a statement to The Fix.

“American higher education has lost the faith of the public because it is seen as an out-of-touch progressive ideological echo chamber dominated by views that diverge widely from the average American,” Executive Director Lauren Noble told The Fix via an emailed statement.

She said Yale should adopt institutional neutrality and eliminate its “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs.

“Using the university name to support a uniformly progressive political agenda has given the impression that institutions of higher education have been co-opted for the sake of politics and abandoned their educational mission,” Noble stated.

Tesla shares have rebounded sharply, rising around 60% since their March lows, driven by renewed investor enthusiasm surrounding the company’s upcoming robotaxi launch and progress on its humanoid robots. The March low coincided with remarks by unhinged leftist Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, who cheerleaded the demise of Tesla when shares cratered. 

Despite the surge in bullish investor sentiment since mid-April, fueled by anticipation of Tesla’s long-awaited robotaxi launch in Austin, Texas, in the coming days and visible progress on its Optimus humanoid robot, UBS maintains a cautious stance on the stock.

UBS analysts Joseph Spak and others published a note on Tuesday, focusing on its proprietary UBS EV Consumer Survey, in which the latest survey found declining global interest in Tesla’s EVs across all major regions (U.S., China, Europe), as well as growing pressure across its core automotive business, where fundamentals continue to deteriorate. 

Spak outlined results from each key market:

• In the U.S., we see Tesla saturation (~48% US BEV share), a limited vehicle lineup and affordability are concerns.

• In China, we see intense competition and Tesla is no longer seen as the technology leader.

• In Europe, we believe there may have been brand damage from Musk’s political involvement

“Overall, we remain cautious on Tesla stock,” Spak said in the note. UBS maintains a Sell rating with a 12-month price target of $190, implying significant downside from current levels. Shares were trading around $366 in premarket on Wednesday.

Spak sees through the robotaxis and humanoid robots hype, telling clients: 

“We understand that there is enthusiasm over robotaxis and humanoid robots, but the automotive business faces mounting challenges and a source of earnings/cash flow may be at risk with removal of California waiver. Musk has indicated the value of Tesla is in AV and humanoid robots. This may be true. But given the deteriorating outlook for the auto business , that means the implied valuation assigned to these ventures is already quite robust.” 

According to the survey of consumers around the world, only 36% of respondents globally would consider purchasing a Tesla—down from 39% a year ago. The share of consumers selecting Tesla as their top BEV (battery electric vehicle) choice fell even more sharply, from 22% to 18%.

Here are the highlights of the survey:

Globally, 36% of consumers would consider a Tesla, down from 39% last year. As a consumer’s top BEV choice, Tesla is down to 18%, from 22% last year. The top choice decline was fairly prominent across the 3 major regions for Tesla:

• In the U.S. top choice went to 29% vs. 38% last year (and note vs. 2024 BEV share of 48%).

• In China, Tesla as a top choice was down to 14% from 18% last year and now behind both BYD and Xiaomi. More broadly, China consumers prefer to buy domestic OEM brands vs TSLA, although they do favor TSLA over other foreign OEM brands.

• In Europe, top choice went to 15% from 20% last year. In Europe, we also saw brand consideration for Audi and BMW surpass TSLA.

• The survey also asked about autonomous/ADAS. Importance of ADAS as a feature held steady. When it comes to paying for autonomous features, only 1~12% would pay more than $7.6k upfront for autonomous features. TSLA’s FSD currently costs $8k to buy outright. Meanwhile, only ~18% would pay >$100/ month for autonomous features; FSD subscription is currently $99/month.

It’s hard to ignore the shifting sentiment in the global EV survey data, which shows consumer interest steadily moving away from Tesla and toward Chinese rival BYD.

Tesla’s favorability in the U.S. has remained stagnant at around 50% for several years. 

In China, respondents have been increasingly favoring domestic brands over Tesla. 

In Europe, respondents were also beginning to shift to domestic brands. 

The survey found that youngsters around the world are increasingly favoring Tesla. This bodes well for future demand. 

Interest in owning a vehicle that can drive autonomously differs per country. 

Contrary to UBS analyst Joseph Spak’s warning of a “deteriorating outlook” for Tesla’s automotive business, one user on X pointed to fresh sales data from China showing the Model Y ranked as the best-selling mid-size SUV for the week beginning May 19.

Tesla’s Model Y is the best selling car in the list of Top 10 weekly sales of mid-size SUVs for the week May.19-May.25 in China🔥

With 7400 units delivered, we need a telescope to see the runner up, Tiguan L by Volkswagen, with 2900 units 🔭 pic.twitter.com/Ci8q4xc0qo

— TCMesla (@TCMesla) May 27, 2025

Tip Ranks places a 47% success rate on Spak’s calls. 

. . .