Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

GLJ Research’s Gordon Johnson is one of my favorite analysts on the street to read and gets a rare endorsement from me (I hate basically everyone selling sell-side style research) because, like my friend Mark Spiegel, he is one of the last few analysts out there that seems committed to the truth….no matter how ridiculous it makes him look in the short term while he’s waiting for his theses to play out.

Johnson came away from this week’s Fed meeting with a conclusion that would have sounded almost absurd just a few months ago: the Fed may finally be breaking with the post-2008 playbook. And the timing couldn’t be better for the Fed to do this to make a total fool out of me. After all, I literally just predicted a month ago there’s no way they would ever stop the neverending cycle of QE they started two decades ago. Days ago, I satirically wrote that the only bear case left for markets is total human extinction.

Enter Kevin Warsh’s first press conference as Fed Chair with inflation running completely out of control. My friend GoJo makes the…err…bold claim that the Fed is not tweaking it’s post-2008 playbook…not adjusting it around the margins…breaking with it.

Johnson’s central argument is that Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as Fed Chair represented a repudiation of the Bernanke-Powell era and a return to a much older conception of central banking…one where the Fed’s primary job is delivering price stability, not reassuring investors, supporting asset prices, or providing a detailed roadmap for every future policy move.

The actual rate decision this past week was almost beside the point. The Fed held rates steady at 3.50%-3.75% for a fourth consecutive meeting. What mattered was everything around it. Warsh stripped forward guidance from the statement, calling it ill-suited to the current environment. He refused to submit his own dot-plot projection. The statement itself was shortened and reduced largely to facts. Nine of twelve participants now expect at least one hike by year-end.

Meanwhile, Warsh launched multiple task forces to reevaluate the Fed’s framework and openly emphasized the institution’s obligation to restore credibility on inflation.

Markets did not exactly celebrate at first (before, of course, turning higher on Thursday). On Wednesday, stocks sold off, gold weakened, two-year Treasury yields surged, and September hike odds nearly doubled. Investors who showed up hoping to hear some variation of “cuts are coming” instead got a lecture on inflation credibility and a reminder that the Fed’s mandate is not maximizing the S&P 500.

To Johnson, this wasn’t simply a hawkish meeting. It was the opening shot of a regime change. His view is that the modern Fed became two things after 2008. First, it became obsessed with transparency. Every possible future policy path was telegraphed through dots, forecasts, projections, speeches, press conferences, and carefully managed expectations.

Second, and more importantly what I argue all the time, is that it it became a de facto backstop for risk assets. Investors learned that serious market weakness would eventually trigger accommodation. Bad economic news became good market news because it increased the probability of Fed support.

Johnson believes Warsh is deliberately dismantling that framework. No dot. Less guidance. Fewer promises. More uncertainty. More emphasis on inflation. More willingness to surprise markets. In Gordon’s telling, the “Fed put” is not merely being questioned; it is being retired. That is a massive claim. It’s also why Johnson reaches for perhaps the biggest comparison available: Paul Volcker.

In a note out to clients this week, Johnson argues that Warsh’s intellectual instincts are fundamentally different from Bernanke’s. Bernanke’s worldview was shaped by the Great Depression and the dangers of deflation. Warsh’s appears much more shaped by the inflationary experience of the 1970s.

Johnson points to Warsh’s long-running criticism of quantitative easing, his concerns about balance-sheet expansion, and his warnings about inflation risk dating back more than a decade. He also highlights Warsh’s role during the QE2 debates, when Warsh publicly expressed skepticism about the very policies his institution was pursuing and eventually left the Board before his term expired.

In Johnson’s interpretation, today’s Warsh is the same man who spent years warning that emergency monetary policy was becoming permanent monetary policy. That’s why he sees continuity rather than reinvention. To Gordon, this isn’t a politician adopting hawkish language because it’s fashionable. It’s someone who has been making versions of the same argument for fifteen years and now finally has the votes.

This all sounds great. I hope Gordon is right. I have a sneaking suspicion that he isn’t. And before we start engraving “Volcker 2.0” onto commemorative plaques, it’s worth remembering a few things.

The first is that the easiest thing in the world for a central banker to do is talk tough. The hardest thing in the world for a central banker to do is stay tough.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

Volcker’s legacy wasn’t built on speeches, communications strategy, or symbolic changes to Fed procedures. It was built on tightening until inflation broke despite overwhelming political pressure, market turmoil, and public outrage. The real Volcker test begins when unemployment rises. The real Volcker test begins when stocks are down 25%. The real Volcker test begins when Congress starts screaming and the White House decides inflation is suddenly less important than growth.

And that has been the time where the chickenshit cowards who advocate for today’s monetary policy go into full panic mode and capitulate, sometimes on national television.

If we’re being honest, the Fed’s institutional history doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. Every cycle begins with stern declarations about price stability. Every cycle begins with promises that inflation will be defeated and that credibility is paramount. Then something breaks…a bank, a market, a major employer, a politically important sector, or the broader economy itself, and suddenly the framework gets rewritten, CNBC anchors shit themselves and act like 2 year olds throwing temper tantrums, and the Fed and Treasury come to the rescue. Then, the Fed chair at the time is praised for having “courage” and wins the Nobel Prize.

The emergency becomes permanent. The temporary facility becomes structural. The exception becomes the rule. The Fed’s modern history is not one of relentless discipline. More often than not, it’s a story of capitulation followed by a very sophisticated explanation for why capitulation was actually prudent policy all along. As Peter Schiff often says, “there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government program”.

And that’s the part of Gordon’s thesis I’m not yet willing to underwrite.

To be clear, I’m not dismissing it. In fact, I think Johnson is right to focus on the reaction function rather than the rate decision itself. A central bank’s communication framework often tells you more than a 25-basis-point move ever could. If Warsh is truly trying to reintroduce uncertainty into markets, force investors to price risk without a guaranteed backstop, and reorient the institution around inflation rather than asset prices, that would represent a profound shift.

The problem is that every Fed chair looks tough before something important breaks.

Personally, I’m not ready to declare that Warsh is picking up where Volcker left off. I am willing to wait and see. If he continues prioritizing inflation over asset prices, if he accepts market pain as a necessary consequence of restoring credibility, and if he proves willing to keep tightening in the face of inevitable pressure, then perhaps Gordon’s thesis will prove correct.

What I do think Gordon gets right is the underlying inflation question.

As I have written repeatedly, if inflation is genuinely persistent, rate hikes are ultimately necessary. There is no magic workaround. There is no AI-powered escape hatch. There is no press-conference solution. Inflation is not defeated through clever narratives or optimistic forecasts. It is defeated through tighter monetary conditions that reduce demand, re-anchor expectations, and restore confidence in the currency.

History is fairly clear on that point, which is why so many people celebrate Volcker today while simultaneously advocating policies that would make a genuine Volcker-style campaign impossible. Everyone loves inflation fighters in retrospect. Very few people are willing to tolerate the economic pain required to actually defeat inflation in real time.

That’s why I remain skeptical. Because the Fed has spent the better part of two decades teaching markets that pain will eventually be relieved. Breaking inflation is hard. Breaking expectations and psychology that has become laden with hubris and euphoria is harder, as I wrote back in early 2025. Breaking the institution’s own reflex to intervene may be hardest of all.

So yes, Gordon may be right that the Fed put is dying. He may even be right that Warsh intends to kill it. But intentions are cheap. Every Fed chair sounds independent until the pressure arrives. Every Fed chair talks about credibility until credibility becomes expensive. As Mike Tyson said famously, “everybody’s got a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

I love reading Gordon’s take and will continue to do so. But I’ll only believe the Fed put is dead when the next crisis arrives and the Fed refuses to revive it.

I’d love to hear your take on what you think Warsh’s tenure will look like in our ongoing discussion here. Who’s stance do you agree with more?

—

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

As we have detailed extensively, most recently here: “Blackrock’s Private Credit Fund Gates Investors Again After Redemption Requests Surge “, private credit firms continue to face a flood of redemption requests…

And after this week’s report from Fitch Ratings, it appears any light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train.

As Andrew Moran reports for The Epoch Times, the U.S. private credit default rate remained at a record high in May, according to the latest update from Fitch Ratings.

Private credit woes this year have taken a backseat to various headwinds and tailwinds, whether the war in Iran or SpaceX’s blockbuster debut on Wall Street.

But data suggest that pressures are still mounting for the industry.

Fitch Ratings said its Private Credit Default Rate remained at a record 6 percent in May, unchanged from the previous month.

Monitoring approximately 1,500 private credit issuers, Fitch logged 14 default events last month. Healthcare providers, business services, and industrial manufacturing each registered three events.

Six serial defaulters—issuers that have defaulted multiple times—were discovered by Fitch. Additionally, half of the default events consisted of maturity extensions under stress.

“This continued the prior month trend of maturity extensions under stress outpacing all other default scenarios,” Fitch reported.

“Five of the seven maturity extensions pushed loan maturities out by one to two years from their original maturity dates, while one extended the maturity by seven months and another extended it by one month.”

It is unclear whether the worst is over for the $2 trillion private credit sector, as more investment firms continue to see client exodus or impose capital redemption limits.

Turmoil Persists

In a recent letter to shareholders, BlackRock Private Credit Fund stated that shareholder repurchase requests reached more than 13 percent of outstanding shares in the second quarter, pushing past the investment vehicle’s 5 percent quarterly limit for the first time since it launched in June 2022.

Blackstone, the world’s largest alternative asset manager, said earlier this month that it is capping withdrawals at its flagship private credit fund as redemption requests surged in the April–June period. It reassured investors that limiting drawdowns would boost long-term gains.

Partners Group, the Swiss-listed fund manager, halted redemptions from its Global Value SICAV fund at 5 percent after withdrawal requests reached almost 10 percent.

David Layton, CEO of Partners Group, said the majority of withdrawals are coming from the retail side, which accounts for about 20 percent of overall investments.

“What you’re doing is you’re balancing the needs of certain investors—a small percentage of the fund that would like to get liquid—with the needs of the remaining segment of the investor population that would like to see that fund continue to invest and continue to compound,” Layton said in a June 3 interview with Bloomberg TV.

The Swiss private markets juggernaut later shot down reports that it would cap more fund withdrawals following a spike in drawdown requests.

“Partners Group has no intention of altering any documented liquidity mechanisms and has no plans to freeze any of its evergreen vehicles, given their portfolios are healthy and they have sufficient liquidity in line with the target allocations,” it said in a June 12 statement.

Systemic Risk ‘Less Pronounced’

Concerns that private credit could be the next subprime meltdown after 2008 and 2009 have been widespread, fueled by growing retail participation and the “SaaSpocalypse.”

Private credit is widely exposed to the software sector, accounting for up to 20 percent of its loans. When software stocks were hammered earlier in the year due to worries that artificial intelligence would upend business models, the private credit industry also took a beating.

But a chorus of market watchers argues that systemic risks are minuscule.

“Systemic risk appears far less pronounced than between sub-prime and the financial system in 2008,” LSEG analysts said in a June 15 analysis.

“We note that [private credit] largely withstood the Covid and Ukraine shocks in 2020-22 and that both lenders and borrowers are well aware of the risks involved in these loans, whence the covenant-protection is generally greater.”

Investors seem to agree, as private credit stocks joined the broader market rally over the last few days.

Still the bounce remains modest amid YTD declines…

Authored by Daniel Nuccio via The Brownstone Institute,

AI is everywhere. It’s getting incorporated into everything. That’s simply progress, we’re told. And therefore we need to embrace it, lest we look like a Luddite and let China win (whatever that means).

Yet, simultaneously, a lot of people also are afraid because of AI. Very afraid. And sometimes, we’re told that we should be afraid too.

However, in public discourse surrounding AI, there often can be a lack of detail regarding what specifically we’re supposed to be afraid of. Sometimes it is not even clear what is meant by the term “AI.”

Technically speaking, as I have touched on previously, one could argue (as some older computer scientists do) that AI is an umbrella term for a family of algorithms based in math that sometimes dates back more than a half-century. 

Practically speaking, numerous programs we’ve been living with for years like Google Maps and Amazon’s recommender system can be thought of as AI despite their lack of novelty. Yet, in public discourse, the term AI tends to refer to generative AI (e.g, ChatGPT), as well as any number of hypothetical future programs that will do everything humans can do but better, will therefore both solve all our problems while also putting most of us out of work, and also eventually just might decide to go full Skynet on us unless they decide that we’re not worth the trouble.

(Sounds pretty sexy. Perhaps someone should make a series of movies about it. Perhaps people will even like two out of five of them.)

Unfortunately, though, these more hyperbolic, sci-fi depictions of the threat(s) posed by AI tend to get more attention than, and consequently distract from, more realistic and more imminent threats pertaining to privacy, freedom, autonomy, and even just a way of life many of us have come to enjoy. 

Automatic license plate readers, facial recognition, digital grandmothers, mandatory drunk and distracted driving detection programs, any of the technologies “grandson” was shouting about in “Autonomous Delivery Robot,” and wearable recording devices that transcribe and process in-person conversations for the anti-social and easily distracted are just of a few of the more realistic threats that come to mind. (And this by no means is a complete list).

Therefore, I tend to appreciate when members of our ruling class can take a morning to have a measured conversation about fairly well-defined threats posed by this technology (or suite of technologies), as was done at the US House of Representatives’ Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee’s June 4 meeting on the “AI Security Landscape.”  

Superficially, the meeting’s discussion could probably be framed in terms of “Is the greatest threat posed by AI an external one in the form of foreign hackers looking to exploit vulnerabilities in the software controlling the United States’ critical infrastructure or an internal one born from the lack of regulation and accountability for AI’s use at home?”

From watching the discussion, however, it seemed less like a matter of “either or” and more like an uncontested response of “Yes and…”

Sandra Joyce of Google, Frontier Model Forum executive director Chris Meserole, and Corridor Security Inc. CEO and co-founder Jack Cable provided testimony regarding how AI is transforming the cybersecurity landscape as digital weapons fall into the hands of the cyber-barbarians at the gates who will use those weapons to find vulnerabilities in our critical infrastructure and/or deploy ransomware attacks.

“This technology has impacted cybersecurity in profound ways for both the defender and the attacker,” stated Joyce.

“[H]ackers have more powerful tools than ever,” Cable noted, naming Mythos and GPT-5.5 specifically.

“These models aren’t just hype,” he warned.

“They are truly starting to rival or exceed humans on security tasks and do so at an unprecedented scale.”

Joyce suggested “threat actors” don’t even need something like Mythos and can be quite capable of doing a lot of damage with an older program.

Emphasizing the threats from within, Electronic Frontier Foundation senior policy analyst Matthew Guariglia stated, “The question is not how do we reign in AI, it’s how do we reign in the agencies that would unleash AI on the American public?”

In his testimony, Guariglia highlighted how the US national security state already uses a variety of tools that collect data on people without probable cause and that can make “inferences about a person’s politics, personal life, religion, and geolocation, sometimes inaccurately with major consequences.” 

Furthermore, Guariglia said, “AI also has a track record of getting things wrong, from false citations on legal briefs to a major AI mistake that sent DHS recruits to the field without proper training.” 

“There are likely more consequential examples that we don’t even know about because of classification that would prevent a more thorough accounting,” he added.

Similarly, Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-IL) observed, “We’re watching AI-powered monitoring systems spread to schools, to public housing, to hospitals with no transparency about how they work, no ability to challenge them, and no recourse when they’re wrong.”

In a later exchange concerning a possible scenario in which an AI program designates a city’s water supply as compromised when it is in fact fine and subsequently restricts the ability of the city’s residents to access water, Guariglia and Ramirez suggested that within the confines of current US law, transparency about how the problem occurred would likely be left up to the discretion of the city implementing the system while the question of who can be held accountable is a rather nebulous one.

Despite not quite being as sexy as battling T-800s in the streets for our lives and our livelihoods, more ransomware attacks, a further erosion of our privacy, and a lack of required transparency and accountability when HAL makes an oopsy and shuts off everyone’s water all sound pretty serious even if these things don’t quite warrant mass hysteria or a movie franchise. Perhaps they are even sufficient for reasonable concerns over the current zeitgeist to incorporate AI into everything. And maybe, just maybe, they provide reason to make us rethink our decision to connect everything in modern life to the internet.

Authored by Noel Williams via AmericanThinker.com,

So far, the World Cup is living up to Gianni Infantino’s (FIFA President) clarion call to “unite the world” (or at least the participating nations therein).

Of course, that could quickly change when we get to the knockout stages of the tournament when they’re more overwrought emotions and rivalries are more intense.

In the meantime, soccer fans from far-flung places are reveling in America’s beauty and bounty.

They appreciate America more than Dems, which is not surprising since most Dems are anti-American.

There are three glorious American attributes that are drawing particular praise from our World Cup visitors: the warmth and friendliness of the people (they must not be commingling with Dems), the natural beauty of the country, and the food.

But what about the beer?!

Scotland fans drank the pubs in Boston dry. At the Adams Taproom, they drank four times as much Boston Lager as the bar usually sells.

They better call for emergency deliveries because guess who’s in town next? England!

The English, like the Scots and other fans, are also loving America.

It must be a relief to breathe deep the fresh American air, and evade the P.C. Police in blighted Old Blighty.

The Three Lions (nickname for their teams) will play Ghana at Gillette Stadium (aka, Boston Stadium during the World Cup) next Tuesday — and they are not known to be teetotalers. 

This exuberant fan is not atypical as he endeavored to get drunk before, during, and after the game against Croatia in Dallas.

“We’re going to get drunk before the game. We’re going to get drunk during the game. And then we’re going to get drunk after the game.”

The match doesn’t start for another few hours, but England fans have a plan. pic.twitter.com/RSBYt2oguh

— FOX 4 NEWS (@FOX4) June 17, 2026

To the birthplace of the American Revolution: The English are coming, the English are coming. Let’s have a proper Boston Beer Party. Should they turn into unruly hooligans, there’s always Boston Harbor to sober them up.

Even if the ale and lager procurers underestimate the fans’ drinking prowess, America’s munificence is unparalleled.

It’s so refreshing to hear the objective opinions of our gracious visitors (mostly unaffected and uninfected by TDS), contrasted to the damning Dems.

For example, imagine the leftist angst incurred when a fan admired a scantily-clad cheerleader; the Scot in this sincere scene was simply agog (I doubt the Scottish ladies tartan tans compare).

Tartan Army are not used to cheerleaders! 😂@WeAreSTVRadio pic.twitter.com/sY00udItqX

— Cat Harvey (@MissCatHarvey) June 14, 2026

No longer dependent on the leftist press, our World Cup visitors can believe their “lying eyes”: we are still the last great hope of Earth.

Therefore, when the U.N. or other pretentious “dumb-gentsia” group ranks the most “livable countries,” they should consider their ability to host such a spectacular spectacle.

Go USA!

Short of abolishing the Fed (much preferred), would automating the Fed make more sense than the current system? Should we trust Kevin Warsh, Jerome Powell, and Lisa Cook to read the tea leaves each month and decree rate changes for us commoners? 

That was Fundstrat’s Mark Newton’s suggestion during last night’s ZeroHedge debate on his H2 market outlook. He pointed out the new chair’s plan to eliminate “forward guidance”, a term invented under the previous chair Powell in which the Fed strategically signals its plans on rate changes so that those signals themselves might change rates organically by market forces.

It’s all a big mess… but Newton and BTIG’s Jonathan Krinsky also debated whether the AI trade is in a bubble and which sectors look like attractive investment opportunities. Here were Newton’s remarks on the Fed and other highlights, though we recommend watching the full debate at the end:

Automate The Fed

Fundstrat’s Mark Newton believes incoming Fed Chair Kevin Warsh could face a difficult balancing act from day one.

“I think he’s got his work cut out for him,” Newton said, noting that Warsh will be speaking for a Federal Reserve committee that has “turned clearly hawkish” while simultaneously facing pressure from an administration that “almost always wants to cut rates to juice the economy.”

Rather than focusing on rate cuts themselves, Newton argued the biggest change under Warsh may be how the Fed communicates. “My take is that there’s gonna be far less forward guidance or even a dot plot under Warsh, less communication,” he said. Markets have become accustomed to a steady stream of comments from Fed officials, and Newton warned that the transition could create volatility as investors try to recalibrate.

WARSH: I THINK THAT MARKETS PERFORM BEST WHEN REACTING TO INCOMING DATA, THEY WORK LESS EFFICIENTLY WHEN THEY ASK HOW WILL THE FED REACT TO THAT INCOMING INFORMATION

Finally, the 4th wall falls

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 17, 2026

Newton also mused about automating the entire FOMC, questioning the dated practice of a council of economists working with clunky tools to periodically tinker with the entire nation’s (and world’s) economy.

“If there’s one area that’s ripe for regime change by AI completely, it’s the Federal Reserve,” he said. “They’re looking at data going back over the last few years to try to make decisions on whether to cut interest rates, which will take twelve to eighteen months to materialize in the economy. That does not make any sense in 2026.”

pic.twitter.com/qLXBEgdTQs

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 19, 2026

“The AI trade will continue into 2028”

Where many see a bubble, Fundstrat’s Mark Newton sees an opportunity.

“I do not see a bear market in technology,” he said, arguing that the sector is likely headed for a period of consolidation rather than a major decline. Semiconductors may need to “back and fill” after their recent run, according to Newton.

He remains bullish on the longer-term AI story but did say there are signs that it’s overbought near-term. Newton highlighted the Relative Strength Index (RSI) on the highly-watched Invesco Equal Weight Tech ETF.

“That’s all a good thing for tech. It’s just that when an RSI level of 78 on equal-weighted technology, it’s not the best risk reward for me over the next three to six months.”

On banks, REITs, travel, consumer discretionary, and healthcare sectors, Newton sees improving momentum, noting that “most European and also U.S. commercial banks have been showing very good strength” while REIT ETFs are “breaking out to multi-year highs.”

“Consumers snapping back over the next couple months” following a ceasefire success, he said, would benefit airlines, hotels, and beaten-down discretionary names. Newton specifically likes Delta, Marriott, booking companies, and apparel Ralph Lauren. 

pic.twitter.com/pnOF5LInOu

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) June 19, 2026

Watch the full debate below, watch on Adam Taggart’s Thoughtful Money channel, or listen on Spotify.

https://t.co/jxITOFkt3p

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 18, 2026

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity,

The insane attack at a family-run zoo in Cambridgeshire, UK has now produced a fresh outrage.

A three-year-old boy from the area remains in critical but stable condition at Addenbrooke’s Hospital after being thrown into a crocodile enclosure.

Yet, the 30-year-old man from Norfolk arrested on suspicion of attempted murder has already been released on bail until 18 September. Police assessed him as “unfit for interview” and continue to withhold his identity from the public.

Man arrested after child, 3, ‘thrown into crocodile enclosure’ released as suspect ‘unfit for interview’ https://t.co/NRmW0yzmkL

– GB News (@GBNEWS) June 19, 2026

This follows the initial reporting of the incident at Johnson’s of Old Hurst zoo near Huntingdon. As covered in our earlier piece on the initial incident and rampant online speculation about the identity of the man who was arrested.

The boy and the suspect were not known to each other, and detectives from the Major Crime Unit treated the case as a serious criminal investigation from the outset.

Cambridgeshire Police confirmed the release after the assessment. Detective Inspector Verity McCann stated: “Our enquiries are ongoing as we continue to understand the circumstances surrounding this distressing incident. Our thoughts remain with the boy and his family, and specialist officers continue to support them through this difficult time.”

Witnesses described a heroic intervention that prevented an even worse outcome. The zoo owner’s wife reportedly jumped 15 feet into the crocodile enclosure to pull the injured toddler to safety.

Staff administered immediate medical treatment at the scene before emergency services arrived. The boy suffered serious wounds from at least one crocodile attack inside the enclosure.

Reports indicate he suffered a broken arm, a broken pelvis, likely stemming from the impact after being thrown, as well as multiple crocodile bites during the incident on Thursday afternoon.

Public anger has erupted over the decision to release the suspect.

Many see the move as further evidence of a justice system that fails to prioritise the protection of children and the public when confronted with extreme violence.

? #BREAKING: It has been confirmed that the man who threw a 3-year-old toddler into a crocodile enclosure in the UK…

…HAS ALREADY BEEN LET OUT ON BOND!!!!

The man is being described as ‘mentally disabled’ and police are STILL refusing to name him.

Witnesses say the zoo… pic.twitter.com/uBhxXhJkWY

– Matt Van Swol (@mattvanswol) June 19, 2026

Imagine living in a country where you go straight to jail for a tweet, but get bail after being arrested for ‘allegedly’ throwing a 3 year old baby into a crocodile enclosure! The world is watching is disbelief! pic.twitter.com/Do1ljHSofF

– Liam Tuffs (@liamtuffs1) June 19, 2026

Lunatics who throw toddlers to crocodiles probably ought not to be on the streets. https://t.co/lIijFzPlIh

– Carl Benjamin ??????? (@Sargon_of_Akkad) June 19, 2026

The pattern of releasing individuals deemed too unwell for interview while leaving the public uninformed about their identity has fuelled widespread demands for transparency and stronger safeguards.

Critics argue that mental health assessments should not automatically translate into freedom to roam when the alleged act demonstrates clear and present danger to others.

Meanwhile, Sky News headlines have drawn sharp criticism for their choice of language. The outlet repeatedly described the boy as having “ended up in crocodile enclosure” rather than stating he was thrown there.

BREAKING: Man arrested after toddler ended up in crocodile enclosure ‘not fit for interview’ and released https://t.co/eBomHyjDvC

– Sky News (@SkyNews) June 19, 2026

One report opened with: “A three-year-old boy who was seriously injured after ending up in the crocodile enclosure at a Cambridgeshire zoo was attacked by at least one of the reptiles, Sky News understands.”

An earlier Sky News post had used similar passive phrasing: “a boy has been taken to hospital with serious injuries and a man arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a toddler ended up in a crocodile enclosure in Huntingdonshire.”

“Ended up”. The toddler just ended up in the crocodile pit. Funny how all these kind of things end up isn’t it. https://t.co/GeLLNAFhVX

– m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) June 19, 2026

This wording stands in contrast to more direct reporting elsewhere that used “thrown into” in the headline. Passive constructions like “ended up” minimise the deliberate nature of the assault and shift focus away from the perpetrator’s actions toward vague circumstance.

In high-profile cases involving violence against children, precise language matters. Euphemisms erode public trust and fuel the very speculation authorities claim to want to avoid.

The decision to withhold the suspect’s identity while confirming his release on bail until mid-September compounds the problem. A man arrested for allegedly hurling a defenceless three-year-old into a pit of crocodiles is back in the community.

Britain’s justice system increasingly appears calibrated to protect processes and sensitivities over basic public safety. When posting opinions online can trigger swift arrest and denial of bail, yet an alleged attempt to feed a toddler to crocodiles results in prompt release, the imbalance is impossible to ignore.

The heroic actions of zoo staff saved a life that day. The authorities’ response since has done little to reassure anyone that similar threats will be met with the seriousness they demand.

Not long after Shenzhen-based Huawei unveiled what it described as a breakthrough pathway for advanced semiconductor production at the recent IEEE ISCAS conference, the Trump administration raised concerns that one of Dutch chip-equipment giant ASML’s extreme ultraviolet lithography, or EUV, machines may have fallen into Chinese hands.

Bloomberg reports that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has raised concerns that one of ASML’s EUV machines may have reached China despite US-led export controls.

ASML has pushed back on Lutnick’s suggestion, explaining that none of its EUV machines, used to print the tiniest circuit patterns onto advanced computer chips, have ended up in the hands of the Chinese. This report is based on sources from the outlet who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.

ASML says all 314 of its operating EUV machines are accounted for globally.

More color from the outlet:

Multiple senior administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe a sensitive matter, said they have evidence indicating ASML is not acting in good faith — such as exports to China of gear specifically related to EUV tools, which ASML denied to Bloomberg. These US officials, who didn’t comment on Lutnick’s meetings with ASML, declined multiple requests from Bloomberg for proof of the shipments, citing the sensitivity of the information and sources. They also declined to say whether they have seen evidence of an actual EUV system in the Asian country.

The dispute adds pressure on ASML, with shares in Amsterdam trading down as much as 2% on Friday. Shares have advanced as much as 81% this year due to the AI and data center buildout narrative.

Here is Citi analyst Andrew Gardiner’s first take on the US Government-ASML dispute:

According to Bloomberg (6/19), US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has told ASML of concerns that an EUV machine is in China, in contravention of regulations that prevent ASML from shipping EUV to China. No evidence for the claims was provided to journalists. ASML have reiterated publicly they have never shipped a machine or EUV parts to China. ASML can “see” each of the EUV tools running at customer fabs, as the machines send back data to ASML on their operations. ASML are now in the difficult position of trying to prove a negative, when no evidence is being furnished against their position. Given our time spent with ASML over the last two decades, including with current management in recent years, we find it very hard to believe that they would jeopardise their position in the industry, their reputation, or their technological leadership just to deliver an EUV tool to China.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Masahiro Wakasugi comments:

US concerns about Chinese chipmakers using advanced tools made by ASML might have little impact on its sales. Bloomberg News reports that in recent meetings, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick expressed the concerns to ASML’s leaders, saying one of its top machines might have made its way into China, violating US-led restrictions. But ASML says it has never shipped extreme ultraviolet lithography systems to China and has complied with tightening restrictions on deep ultraviolet tools. Also, using ASML machines to make advanced chips would probably require sophisticated tools from other foreign firms that also face restrictions. China is increasingly able to make more-advanced chips with legacy tools, so the US concerns may reflect Chinese engineering progress rather than any lapse in ASML’s compliance with export controls.

Related:

• Inside The Chip Chokepoint: Goldman’s Five Key Takeaways From ASML Visit

US concerns may reflect China’s progress in developing advanced chips, especially after Huawei’s announcement last month of a potential breakthrough in semiconductor production.

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal appeals court ruled on June 18 that the Trump administration can move forward with replacing a slavery-related exhibit at Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia.

The decision from the Philadelphia-based Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had blocked the National Park Service from removing the exhibit. The city of Philadelphia had won that earlier ruling after an exhibit describing George Washington’s ownership of enslaved people was taken down.

The exhibit, located at the President’s House historic site, was removed following an executive order signed by President Donald Trump aimed at eliminating what he described as efforts to portray the United States as fundamentally racist or oppressive. The order directed the Interior Department to review and revise historical displays in national parks across the country.

As part of that effort, the National Park Service removed an exhibit in January that focused on nine enslaved individuals who lived and worked at Washington’s Philadelphia residence.

Philadelphia sued, arguing that agreements with the federal government required the city to be consulted before significant changes were made to the site. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe agreed and issued an injunction requiring the exhibit to remain.

However, the appeals court found that removing the exhibit was not an official agency action that could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act. Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas Hardiman said the Park Service’s planned replacement displays still address the history of the nine enslaved people while also noting Washington’s stated opposition to slavery later in life.

According to Hardiman, the new exhibits recognize the injustices of slavery and preserve the stories and humanity of the enslaved individuals who lived at the President’s House.

The Epoch Times reached out to the Interior Department for comment on the decision but did not receive a response by publication time.

Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker criticized the ruling and pledged to continue fighting it in court.

“I will pursue every legal action possible to reverse this decision. We cannot and WILL not rest until the full story of American history – including the existence of Slavery at the President’s House here in Philadelphia – is told, for our Nation and the World to see,” she posted on X on Thursday.

Despite the appeals court decision, the original exhibit may still be restored. In a separate case, U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley in Boston recently ordered the reinstatement of all national park exhibits that had been removed under Trump’s directive. Shortly after the appeals court ruling, Kelley declined to suspend her order while the administration appeals.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Summary:

• Israel and Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire 
• Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks Postponed After Israel-Lebanon Clashes Erupt 

Israel and Hezbollah Agree To Ceasefire

Israel and Hezbollah have agreed to a ceasefire that will begin on Friday at 4 p.m. local time, Reuters reported.

• ISRAEL, HEZBOLLAH AGREE TO CEASEFIRE STARTING ON FRI: RTRS
• ISRAEL, HEZBOLLAH AGREE ON CEASEFIRE FROM 4PM LOCAL: REUTERS

WTI futures tumbled on the ceasefire headline, falling from about $76.40 a barrel to $75.56, as traders priced in reduced geopolitical risk.

The earlier escalation between Israel and Hezbollah increasingly looks as if both sides were squeezing in last-minute strikes ahead of the ceasefire set to take effect later today.

The ceasefire – if it holds – now sets up for nuclear talks between US and Iran. 

Opening Round Of US-Iran Nuclear Talks Postponed After Israel-Lebanon Clashes Erupt 

Talks between Iran and the US were postponed on Friday in Switzerland, delaying what was supposed to be the opening round of negotiations towards a permanent peace and nuclear deal.

The delay appears to center on a new escalation between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah militants in southern Lebanon, a troubling development that threatens the fresh interim deal signed by President Trump and Iran just days ago. Tehran has insisted that a ceasefire in Lebanon is part of the interim deal, meaning the Israel-Hezbollah front could derail the US-Iran diplomatic path to a sustained reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

The Financial Times provided more details on the overnight development:

Talks between Iran and the US in Switzerland were postponed due to Israel launching a wave of deadly air strikes on southern Lebanon, according to three people familiar with the matter.

Iran did not send a delegation to Switzerland for the nuclear talks because of the attacks, the people said. The interim agreement signed by the US and Iran on Wednesday stipulates the “immediate and permanent termination” of fighting, including in Lebanon.

A diplomat familiar with the Switzerland talks told the outlet:

The Iranians have asked for guarantees that hostilities in Lebanon will end, as outlined in the signed agreement, and mediators are currently working to resolve the issue.

According to other FT sources, Iran’s position is effectively “no Lebanon, no deal,” arguing that it has restrained Hezbollah while Washington has failed to restrain Israel.

Israeli airstrikes across more than 10 villages in southern Lebanon killed 18 people and wounded 33, according to Lebanon’s health ministry.

⭕️WATCH: A Hezbollah launcher firing rockets toward IDF soldiers

In response to Hezbollah’s repeated & blatant ceasefire violations, the IDF struck 2 Hezbollah command centers in the Beqaa Valley, 80+ terror targets in southern Lebanon and eliminated dozens of Hezbollah… pic.twitter.com/NntfHM87vd

— Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 19, 2026

Itamar Ben Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, reacted on X to the latest fighting in Lebanon:

For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn! With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn. Our supreme duty is to protect the citizens of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and this commitment takes precedence over every other consideration. I told the Prime Minister, even in our private meetings: For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.

על כל דמעה של אמא ישראלית, אלף אמהות לבנוניות צריכות לבכות. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור!

עם כל הכבוד לאמריקאים, ישראל חייבת להבהיר לעולם כולו שדם בנינו וביטחון אזרחנו איננו הפקר. לבנון כולה צריכה לבעור. חובתנו העליונה היא להגן על אזרחי ישראל ועל חיילי צה״ל, והמחויבות הזו קודמת לכל…

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) June 19, 2026

Drop Site provided more color on the canceled talks:

• Al Mayadeen report earlier today that Iran’s delegation suspended its trip to Geneva due to ongoing Israeli attacks in southern Lebanon.
• A White House spokesperson later said Vice President JD Vance, head of the US delegation, also canceled his planned trip to meet Iranian negotiators and begin talks on negotiating and implementing the postwar framework
• Reuters reported the delegation had been preparing to launch the first round of the agreement’s 60-day negotiations. Tehran had previously told Washington and mediators that developments in Lebanon would be a key factor in whether talks proceed.

Pakistani journalist Kamran Yousaf wrote on X, “Pakistan has called back its advance team from Switzerland, throwing the next round of Iran-US talks into uncertainty.”

He added, “With Tehran seemingly reluctant to engage at a European venue, diplomatic sources say Islamabad or Doha is now the most likely destination for the next round of negotiations.”

BREAKING

Pakistan has called back its advance team from Switzerland, throwing the next round of Iran-US talks into uncertainty.

With Tehran seemingly reluctant to engage at a European venue, diplomatic sources say Islamabad or Doha is now the most likely destination for the…

— Kamran Yousaf (@Kamran_Yousaf) June 19, 2026

Beyond the overnight fighting in southern Lebanon, the takeaway is that the interim deal still gives Washington and Tehran a 60-day ceasefire window, immediately reopening the Strait of Hormuz and creating a framework for eventual talks on Iran’s nuclear program.

The problem now is that both sides need to control their proxies and allied partners. Tehran must keep its Hezbollah fighters restrained, while the Trump administration must keep its Israeli ally from escalating in Lebanon. Without that dual restraint, the 60-day ceasefire window could collapse.

Authored by Dorothy Li via The Epoch Times,

U.S. senators have voiced support for ordinary Chinese people and denounced communist regime leader Xi Jinping for lying to Americans and committing human rights abuses.

The U.S. Senate unanimously approved on June 16 by voice vote a resolution (Senate Resolution 444) condemning Xi for “deceit, undermining prospects for peace and security, and orchestrating crimes against humanity.”

The resolution also encourages the U.S. government and its agencies to use all available tools—including the authorities under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, which allow sanctions against individuals responsible for serious human rights violations or corruption—to hold Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials accountable.

The vote came just a day after Xi’s 73rd birthday.

“There is no greater threat to America’s way of life, peace, and prosperity in the world than Xi Jinping and the CCP,” Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who introduced the resolution earlier this month, told the Senate before the vote.

“Xi Jinping hates us. Communist China wants to destroy us. He is not a partner. He is not a competitor. He is a brutal dictator leading a criminal organization that lies, cheats, steals, exploits slave labor, and commits genocide and crimes against humanity on an industrial scale.”

Under Xi’s leadership, the CCP covered up the COVID-19 outbreak after it first emerged in the central Chinese city of Wuhan in late 2019, allowing it to develop into a global pandemic.

The resolution notes that the CCP lied to the world about where the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19, originated and how easily it was transmitted, while using international organizations such as the World Health Organization to “peddle falsehoods.”

As a result of these deceptions, more than 1 million people died from COVID-19 in the United States alone, according to the resolution.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Grapevine, Texas, on March 28, 2026. Leandro Lozada/AFP via Getty Images

In addition to the global pandemic, the resolution also highlights the CCP’s role in the fentanyl crisis in the United States.

Xi pledged, in 2019 and again in 2023, to work more closely with the U.S. government to curb the flow of fentanyl precursors from the country. Despite these promises, more than 70,000 Americans died from fentanyl overdoses in recent years, with the 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment identifying fentanyl and other synthetic drugs as the “primary drivers of fatal drug overdose deaths nationwide,” the resolution stated.

On the trade front, Xi “doubled down” on the CCP’s decades-long “tradition of cheating,” the resolution stated.

When the Clinton administration sponsored China’s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the CCP promised to transition to a more market-oriented economy, including reducing state control of trade and protecting intellectual property.

However, after more than 25 years, the CCP still “fails to uphold many” of those promises and continues to violate WTO obligations, the resolution stated.

Espionage and cyberattacks have also surged, according to the resolution. In 2017, for instance, four Chinese military-backed hackers carried out a cyberattack against the U.S. credit company Equifax and stole the personal information of about 145 million Americans, according to the FBI.

More than 60 espionage cases linked to the CCP were documented in 20 U.S. states from February 2021 to December 2024, according to the resolution.

Among these was a naturalized U.S. citizen who, in December 2024, pleaded guilty to conspiring to act as an agent of the Chinese regime in relation to running a secret Chinese police station in New York City.

The resolution cites the CCP’s records of human rights violations, including the massacre of student-led protesters demanding political reform and greater freedom at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in June 1989.

Even 36 years later, the bloody repression continues to serve as a “stark reminder of the sheer evil and cowardice” of the CCP and its inability to quash the aspirations of the Chinese people, according to the resolution.

It also highlights the regime’s ongoing abuses, such as the state-sanctioned practice of killing prisoners of conscience—most notably Falun Gong practitioners—for organs.

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that he spoke directly with Xi about releasing Lai during his recent visit to Beijing, but that Xi called Lai’s case “a tougher one” for him.

Scott, in a June 16 statement, called for courage and action.

“The CCP, especially under Xi Jinping’s tyranny, has a particular brand of evil,” Scott said in a statement. “They seek to control the world, and in their mind, that means destroying anyone who stands in their way—whether it’s their own people or not.

“We cannot be afraid to stand up to our enemies and hold the line for the next generation of Americans.”