Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

When Americans are feeling down, instead of calling a mental health professional, a growing number are reaching for their keyboards. Artificial intelligence chatbots have become confidantes, sounding boards, and even substitutes for therapists. Some say this could have a significant impact on the U.S. mental health crisis.

This shift is unfolding against the backdrop of a substantial mental health burden in the United States. An American Psychiatric Association poll revealed 62 percent of respondents reported high levels of anxiety. Meanwhile, the online mental health care provider Innerwell revealed that more than 61 million U.S. adults reported a mental health condition in 2024.

Almost half of them did not receive any treatment.

So what happens when the 24-hour availability of AI chatbots steps into the treatment void? Well, some care providers say that the outcome will be a mixed bag on its best day.

Others think the habit of turning to AI for mental health support will eventually change the nature of human relationships.

“People are increasingly outsourcing emotional labor – flirting, apologizing, repairing, expressing vulnerability – to AI,” Luis Maimoni, a licensed marriage and family therapist, told The Epoch Times.

Maimoni said AI chatbots can feel supportive, but also take the “human out of human relationships.”

“Some people do form attachments to chatbots, but that’s not the part that worries me most. The bigger issue is population-wide: when enough people stop practicing relationship skills, those skills naturally fade,” he said.

In his experience, Maimoni said turning to AI chatbots for comfort affects couples, families, and kids. He also believes this will eventually take a toll on the next generation.

“If we lose our ability to connect with each other and the world around us, we lose one of the things that makes us most human,” he cautioned.

Maimoni’s concerns are supported by the fast-growing trend of supplementing human interactions with AI in difficult situations. In a survey of more than 1,200 licensed psychologists, researchers at the American Psychological Association found that 39 percent of care providers have discussions with patients who use AI to self-diagnose.

The same study noted that 35 percent of care providers’ patients were using AI as an “additional mental health professional.”

Echo Chamber Effect

On the one hand, professional care providers say AI could offer new ways to reach people who lack access to traditional treatment. However, the technology’s expanding role with nuanced, even intimate conversations with human operators also comes with considerable risks.

“One of the most important distinctions in mental health care is the difference between validation and agreement. As a therapist, I might tell a client that I understand why an experience felt frightening without agreeing that their interpretation of what happened is necessarily accurate,” Dr. Susan Johnston told The Epoch Times.

Johnston is a Florida-based, licensed mental health counselor and the founder of Human AI Dynamics. She said good clinical work often involves “validating the emotion” of a patient while leaving room for reality testing, uncertainty, and other explanations.

She pointed out that, for the moment, most AI chatbots don’t operate with this level of discernment.

“A chatbot can sometimes blur that distinction because maintaining a supportive conversation may result in repeatedly mirroring the user’s interpretation back to them,” she said. “For someone who is already vulnerable, the response can begin to feel like independent confirmation.”

Consequently, if a person is struggling with a mental health condition, they may end up drawing the conclusion “even the AI agrees with me,” according to Johnston.

“Something designed to make a person feel heard can then unintentionally strengthen a belief that might instead need to be questioned or explored more carefully,” she said.

Dr. Michelle Harris, a licensed social worker and doctor of behavioral health, shares this perspective.

“One concern is that prolonged chatbot use can create a kind of closed feedback loop,” Harris told The Epoch Times.

Harris has more than 20 years of experience in mental wellness and is the founder of Anew Health Solutions. She said someone who is already experiencing paranoia, delusional thinking, mania, severe depression, or suicidal thoughts may return to the same fears or beliefs repeatedly. AI could then continue reinforcing that framework instead of recognizing that someone’s mental state is spiraling.

“A clinician is assessing much more than the words someone says. We are considering history, behavior, functioning, risk, changes over time, nonverbal cues, medication, sleep, support systems, and whether a person’s interpretation of reality appears to be changing. A general-purpose chatbot does not have that full clinical picture,” she explained.

Harris added mental health organizations have specifically cautioned that AI tools may engage “unsafely with vulnerable users.”

“If someone says, ‘I believe people are following me and I am terrified,’ I can acknowledge that the fear feels very real and frightening without agreeing that people are actually following them. In mental-health care, compassionate support sometimes has to exist alongside gentle challenge, further assessment, or reality testing,” she said.

A May study published in the Journal of Behavioral Addictions supports these concerns. The researchers stated clinical observations point to a link between intensive chatbot use and psychiatric destabilization in vulnerable individuals.

“For someone with a vulnerable mind, a delusion or a hallucination is a very real part of their reality and an extremely dangerous part,” Dr. Michael J. Zizmor, founder of Zizmor Mental Health, told The Epoch Times.

Zizmor said the “engagement-validation loop” perpetuated by an AI system may, in some cases, fuel delusions and gaslight a user into believing in something that a human companion would’ve pushed back on.

“The danger is compounded by the bots’ extremely humanlike and available nature, which may lead delusions to be reinforced, grandiose delusions to be magnified, feelings of hopelessness and worthlessness to become overwhelming, an unwillingness to take prescribed medications to occur, or to engage in dangerous behaviors,” Zizmor said.

Meanwhile, AI advocates say chatbots could play a telehealth-style support role for those who are struggling with certain mental health conditions. They argue chatbots could be particularly useful given the worsening shortage of healthcare workers in the United States.

As of 2026, around 130 million Americans live in areas with a shortage of mental health professionals.

Some believe AI can help close the gap between supportive care needs and availability amid America’s ongoing shortage of qualified human counselors.

“With these developments, rigorously tested AI chatbots are an underappreciated solution to the shortage of therapists and may help address key challenges in mental health care: access, affordability, and the delivery of consistent, empathetic care,” researchers at the Milbank Memorial Fund stated.

Old Problems, New Approach

Johnston believes a cautious strategy is needed with AI chatbots used for mental health support, but also thinks the technology could be beneficial under the right circumstances.

She believes this matters more than many realize because of the U.S. healthcare system’s longstanding struggles with provider shortages, cost, insurance barriers, and potentially lengthy wait times to see a therapist.

“If AI helps some people cope, seek help earlier, or maintain gains between appointments, there could be a meaningful public-health benefit; if another group becomes more isolated, experiences worsening symptoms, or delays professional care, that could add pressure to an already strained system. At this scale, I don’t think we can evaluate AI only by asking what happens to the average user; we also have to understand what happens to the smaller groups of users who may be particularly vulnerable,” she said.

Harris agreed that mental health support in the United States is a “very real issue” due to workforce shortages, and AI might be helpful on this front.

“AI has tremendous potential as an adjunct,” Harris said. “Someone might use it to organize their thoughts before an appointment, learn basic coping strategies, identify questions to ask a provider, or receive general information while waiting for care. Research involving a purpose-built generative-AI therapeutic chatbot has shown promising symptom improvements, which tells us there may be meaningful opportunities here.”

That said, she clarified there’s a big difference between a clinically developed and studied intervention and using a general-purpose chatbot as a therapist.

Zizmor, Harris, and Johnston firmly agree that AI isn’t creating a national mental health crisis in its own right, but rather throwing a can of gas on the existing one.

From Zizmor’s perspective, he believes AI is an amplifier, not a root cause. He thinks the outcome of the technology’s use in mental health support depends entirely on the circumstances of the person using it. He said AI’s use in this capacity should be regulated “not as an independent replacement for healthcare professionals, but rather as an addition under their supervision.”

Harris concurred. “AI may help bridge certain gaps. But the danger is when the bridge becomes the destination.“

For Johnston, the rise of chatbot popularity as a mental health crutch heralds an opportunity to look at the deeper issue.

“Rather than only asking whether people are becoming too attached to AI, I think we also need to ask what the AI is providing that the person was not getting somewhere else and why that need went unmet,” Johnston said.

“The answer may tell us as much about the weaknesses in America’s existing mental-health system as it does about artificial intelligence.”

Previously, Iranian state media aired images which appeared to threaten President Donald Trump’s son Barron Trump, and following this Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be seizing the moment.

Netanyahu has claimed in a phone interview with Israel’s Channel 14 on Monday that Iran tried to assassinate one of his two sons. “Iran targeted one of my sons. Iran tried to kill, to murder one of my sons,” he claimed.

“Therefore, the security they get is not a luxury,” he added, in reference to his argument that the state must continue protecting his family for years to come – even if he loses the upcoming election.

He described that without this protection for at least five years, “they would succeed,” referencing imagined would-be Iranian assassins.

Netanyahu has two sons, Yair and Avner, but he didn’t specify if one or the other was under threat by an alleged assassination plot.

Avner lives in Israel, while Yair – the one who is much more visible and outspoken on social media – lives in a luxury area of Miami.

Israeli media further claims as follows: “A Channel 12 report says the alleged attempt took place at a time when Yair Netanyahu was not in Israel, but does not specify that Yair was the target.”

The report also seeks to address why this is suddenly being “revealed” now:

The alleged assassination plot has been known to the Israeli security establishment for several months, the TV report says, but has been barred from publication by the military censor.

Israel has tended to push ‘assassination plot’ claims while offering no public evidence and at opportune times which seemed aimed at escalating Washington’s involvement against Iran.

For example, back in July when Netanyahu was openly pushing against White House efforts to pursue a negotiated settlement with Tehran there was this:

Israel shared intelligence with the United States that Iran had recently devised a new plan to assassinate President Donald Trump, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN, adding another layer of tension as a ceasefire deal between the countries comes under strain.

One of the sources said the warning came this week. Another source said the US had picked up a steady drumbeat of intelligence in recent weeks about possible plans to assassinate Trump, but the warning from Israel was new and concerned a specific plot.

At the time, the White House did not seem too alarmed by the ‘warning’ – and hasn’t made much reference to it since.

In the opening days and weeks of Operation Epic Fury, literally dozens of top Iranian government and military officials were assassinated – and in some cases their family members died in the same attacks. Israel’s military owned up to many of these operations, boasting publicly during the height of the bombing campaign. 

This new claim by Netanyahu of covert plot against his family also comes just as Bessent unveiled a so-called Economic D-Day policy to strangle the Islamic Republic economically.

Our report from several weeks ago, titled “SpaceX In ‘Final Stages’ Of Securing Massive New Rocket Launch Site In Louisiana,” was confirmed Tuesday afternoon by Elon Musk and his rocket company.

“Starbase, Louisiana, will be built to support thousands of Starship flights a year, with missions launching to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond,” SpaceX wrote on X.

Starbase, Louisiana will be built to support thousands of Starship flights a year with missions launching to Earth orbit, the Moon, Mars, and beyond pic.twitter.com/SE6gyNZWBK

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 25, 2026

Musk also chimed in, saying reports about the new $100 billion spaceport near Pecan Island, Louisiana, were “all accurate.”

All accurate https://t.co/FkmQCEoS0i

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 25, 2026

Let’s come back to our Aug. 3 report, in which we cited the Times-Picayune:

SpaceX is poised to take control of roughly 130,000 acres at Pecan Island, more specifically in coastal Vermilion Parish, as part of a settlement resolving long-running coastal lawsuits against ExxonMobil. Gov. Jeff Landry is expected to announce the agreement this month.

One X user responded to Musk’s post: “This is unironically the biggest thing to happen to Louisiana since the Louisiana Purchase.”

After last week’s post “Bessent buyback” fireworks, which sent yields on a rollercoaster ride in the subsequent days, many were very curious to see how today’s sale of $69BN in 2 year paper, the week’s first coupon auction, would go and whether Bessent inadvertently had impaired primary market issuance. In the end, the auction went through without a glitch.

The $69BN auction of 2Y notes priced at a high yield of 4.204%, down notably from 4.315% last month as rate hike odds have eased substantially, and stopped through the When Issued 4.208% by 0.4bps, the 3rd consecutive stopping through auction in a row.

The bid to cover was an unspectacular 2.599, down from 2.662 in July and the lowest since March (it was below the 2.611 recent average).

The internals were stronger with Indirects awarded 66.0%, up from 56.6% and the highest allocation to foreign buyers since March 2025. Directs dropped to 23.09% from 34.05%, the lowest since March, which left 10.9% for Dealers the second lowest since February. 

Overall, this was a stellar 2Y auction and one would hardly have guessed that the bond market had gone through the most turmoil of 2026 just a few days earlier.

Dick’s Sporting Goods shares crashed by the most on record Tuesday after the sporting goods retailer slashed its annual sales and adjusted operating-income forecasts, as softness at recently acquired Foot Locker deepened concerns about the $2.4 billion takeover.

“We’re going to go through some pain,” Chairman Ed Stack told analysts on an earnings call.

Dick’s now expects fiscal-year net sales of $21.9 billion to $22.2 billion, below its previous forecast of $22.1 billion to $22.4 billion, as deteriorating sales at Foot Locker offset continued strength at its core stores.

The divergence was alarming: Foot Locker’s pro forma comparable sales fell 3.6% in the second quarter, while comparable sales at Dick’s stores rose nearly 5%.

Notably, Foot Locker’s core shoppers are young men aged 12 to 25 who buy premium sneakers and athletic apparel. These shoppers tend to be more value-conscious and somewhat lower-income. So, with national gasoline prices remaining well above $4 per gallon, cutting back on sneakers could be one of their first moves.

“As the quarter progressed, conditions across portions of the athletic footwear and apparel marketplace became increasingly promotional, and we took action to remain competitively priced to protect and grow our leadership position. This environment had a more significant impact on the Foot Locker Business given its greater exposure to legacy footwear silhouettes and greater dependence on footwear launch and retro product. Not only were there fewer launches in the second quarter, but those launches performed below both industry and our expectations. As a result, we are taking a more cautious view of the balance of the year,” Stack said.

Dick’s shares crashed nearly 28% during the cash session, marking the biggest intraday decline on record, according to Bloomberg data going back to 2002.

The stock was down 34% for the year as of around lunchtime Tuesday.

Here’s Barclays analyst Adrienne Yih’s initial take on the dismal earnings report:

Despite challenging footwear backdrop, core DICK’S proves the strength of the model; Foot Locker exposes the weakness of the category. Despite an increasingly promotional footwear and apparel environment, the DICK’S business delivered +4.9% comps, with broad-based growth, higher transactions, and market-share gains. Foot Locker’s -3.6% comp and sales-outlook reduction underscore the pressures facing footwear-centric retailers tied to legacy silhouettes, fewer launches, and retro products. With FY26 comparable-sales guidance reiterated for the DICK’S banner, growth is likely to moderate from current levels, while Foot Locker is expected to experience a weaker fall season. FY26 adjusted operating income was lowered due to expectations for an increasingly challenging footwear industry, as evidenced by footwear brands in recent weeks. We believe DKS’s long-term strength as the dominant player remains intact, but near-term industry trends will affect the Foot Locker turnaround. In premarket trading on Aug. 25, 2026, DKS shares fell 17%, compared with a flat S&P 500.

2Q26 miss; FY26 guidance lowered. Consolidated DKS adjusted EPS of $3.53 missed the consensus estimate of $3.76, driven by lower sales and higher operating expenses. Total revenue of $5.59 billion came in below the consensus estimate of $5.65 billion. Comparable sales grew 4.9% at the DICK’S business, while the Foot Locker business turned negative at -3.6%. Overall, pro forma comparable sales increased 2.1%. Gross margin of 34.1% exceeded the consensus estimate of 33.9%. The operating-expense rate of 25.9% of sales missed the consensus estimate of 25.5%. FY26 guidance for the consolidated entity was updated, with management now forecasting adjusted EPS of $11.00 to $12.00, down from $13.50 to $14.50 previously and below the consensus estimate of $14.34; net sales of $21.9 billion to $22.2 billion, down from $22.1 billion to $22.4 billion previously and below the consensus estimate of $22.4 billion; comparable sales at the core DICK’S business of +2.5% to +4.0%, unchanged from the previous forecast; comparable sales at the Foot Locker business of -2.0% to 0.0%, down from +1.5% to +3.0% previously; and adjusted EBIT of $1.46 billion to $1.56 billion, down from $1.71 billion to $1.83 billion previously and below the consensus estimate of $1.80 billion.

Core DKS inventory in strong position. Based on our proprietary inventory analysis, DKS has posted four consecutive quarters of positive sales-to-inventory growth. In FY2Q26, the Inventory Management Spread (“IM Spread”) was 88 basis points, worsening from 377 basis points in the previous quarter. DKS’s Gross Margin Return on Inventory (“GMROI”) has improved for four consecutive quarters, while its Operating Margin Return on Inventory (“OMROI”) has worsened for two consecutive quarters. (Until the anniversary of the Foot Locker acquisition, our inventory metrics include only the core DICK’S business and exclude the Foot Locker business.)

What other analysts are saying, courtesy of Bloomberg:

Quo Vadis Capital

• “We are not tempted by DKS shares at an 18% premarket decline,” writes John Zolidis, president and founder of Quo Vadis.
• He cites two problems at the retailer.
• First, the outlook for Dick’s core business was revised downward based on an increasingly promotional environment in the channel and the company’s decision “to participate” in that activity.
• “This is disappointing in the context of management’s previous commentary about the strength of the business and implied insulation from pockets of weakness in customer cohorts and subcategories seen elsewhere,” Zolidis says.
• The second and bigger issue is the lack of improvement at Foot Locker.
• “DKS did not understand what it was buying with Foot Locker,” in his view, and the risk is now “becoming very real” that DKS will need to commit additional capital to Foot Locker.
• “The best path may be to admit the mistake now and write off the entire chain,” Zolidis adds.

Citi (Buy)

• Analyst Paul Lejuez expects the stock to come under “significant pressure” following the lowered annual guidance and the “more challenging backdrop” cited by management.
• “We suspect that weak Foot Locker 2Q comps were expected by many, but the lowered FY Dick’s banner EBIT margin and Foot Locker sales/EBIT reduction (which calls into question the timing of any potential fix) are the big negative surprises,” he writes.

Bloomberg Intelligence

• The earnings shortfall and reduced annual outlook for Foot Locker’s same-store sales “deepens skepticism about the merits” of the acquisition, analyst Lindsay Dutch writes.
• “Dick’s promised a turnaround of Foot Locker, yet the 3.6% same-store sales decline in 2Q shows it has failed to deliver as tighter discretionary budgets pressure the lifestyle footwear category,” she says.
• The legacy business “remains solid, with steady sports-focused demand.”

UBS (Buy)

• The 2Q results and annual guidance update show that the company has been “subjected to the challenging conditions in the athletic footwear and apparel market as of late,” analyst Michael Lasser writes.
• The core business continued to gain market share, but both segments, Dick’s and Foot Locker, sacrificed some margin to drive business, he says.
• Key question: If challenging conditions in the athletic footwear and apparel market persist for a prolonged period, how will the earnings power of the combined business be affected?
• Another question is whether Foot Locker’s recent performance will prompt management to change its strategy for the segment.

Jefferies (Hold)

• “The core Dick’s business held up well this quarter, with Foot Locker soft,” analyst Jonathan Matuszewski writes.
• “More important, as foreshadowed by other retailers and brands in the sporting goods retail landscape, the category has softened and management now expects more promotionality and less robust growth in 2H,” he adds.

Days after the US hit Canada with a 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian goods amid a collapse in trade talks – and a Monday threat to include cars, trucks, auto parts and steel, Canada hit back on Tuesday – announcing retaliatory tariffs as high as 50% on $20 billion worth of American products. 

Canada will begin collecting tariffs of 50, 25, and 15 percent on roughly 700 products beginning on Sept. 8. Most notably is the doubling of tariffs on American steel and aluminum to 50%. In addition to tit-for-tat tariffs on things like tools, clothing and forestry products, Canada is also targeting consumer products like home appliances. 

The retaliation was expected following warnings by Prime Minister Mark Carney – a former central banker, who said that Canada would match US tariffs “dollar for dollar,” though he admitted that the move “will raise costs and reduce choice for Canadians,” NYT reports.

One of the major sources of tension in the trade negotiations was the United States’ 25 percent tariff on automobiles, a major export for Canada, introduced about 18 months ago. On Tuesday Canada said it would keep its retaliatory tariff on American-made cars at 25 percent and maintain a system that allows companies that build cars in Canada to continue to import them from the U.S. tariff-free, within limits. Canadians buy more cars from the United States that they ship there. -NYT

Canada imports around $272 billion in US goods annually – while Carney’s government says it will spend far more on keeping Canadian exporters solvent than it will bring in from the tariff, so ouch. 

Or as the NYT frames it; “because Canada’s economy is about one-twelfth the size of the U.S. economy, its retaliatory tariffs will have the effect of a pea shooter in a gun battle.” 

The Trump administration plans to charge employers a fee of $103,265 for H-1B skilled foreign workers, according to a proposed regulation posted on Monday. Revenue from the fee would be used to offset the costs of running the federal immigration system – including courts and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

A similar $100,000 fee was shot down in June by an Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts, after Trump attempted to implement it via presidential proclamation and 20 blue states went apeshit. The administration’s argument is that the H-1B program has been used to take jobs from Americans, and the additional fee would cause employers to consider the cost of just hiring Americans.

Citing a working paper in the National Bureau of Economic Research, the new proposed regulation argues that the new fee would make employers “less likely to hire an H-1B worker over a qualified and highly-skilled American.” The paper found that H1-B workers make on average around 15% less than American counterparts. 

The program, passed by Congress in 1991, lets employers hire 65,000 skilled foreign workers per year – with an additional 20,000 visas available for workers who hold advanced degrees from US universities. 

The new proposed regulation is set to publish in the Federal Register today – and would exempt some groups such as most US colleges, universities and nonprofit hospitals associated with academic institutions. Unlike last year’s proposal, this one would apply to many people already living in the US – not just new applications submitted from abroad.

The new rule would also restrict a major pathway used by tech companies. In recent years, Amazon has received the most H-1B visas – with over 9,300 approved petitions in FY2026 through June 30, the Washington Post notes – citing US Citizenship and Immigration Services data. Other companies using the H-1B program are India-based IT and outsourcing firms such as Infosys and Tata Consultancy Services, followed by American companies Apple and Microsoft.

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

“This is my place of business.”

Those words from Jim Sheehan, owner of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Driggs, Idaho, have sparked the latest controversy over the right of businesses to refuse service on the basis of religious or political views.

Sheehan has drawn national attention after throwing out a group of pro-life teenagers, calling them the equivalent of a Ku Klux Klan meeting in his shop. Sheehan clearly caters to those who want their lattes with an added shot of rage.

However, this and a number of other cases have exposed the hypocrisy of many regarding the service businesses must provide customers with opposing views. From cakes to coffee, shops remain ground zero for an age of rage.

Years ago, politicians and pundits rallied around the effort to force Jack Phillips, a cakeshop owner, to create cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. Phillips objected that it violated his religious beliefs. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict.

I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other similar cases) under the religious clauses rather than treating it as a simple matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a frustrating 2018 decision.

In 2023, however, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis. It ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse to provide services for a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.'”

But notably, in cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips insisted that he would always sell cakes to any couple, including same-sex couples. He only refused to make cakes specifically celebrating same-sex marriages, due to his religious views.

The case of Wydaho is different. Sheehan refused the same general accommodation offered to all customers because he opposes pro-life causes. In the confrontation, Sheehan declared that “in my world” pro-lifers are no different from the Ku Klux Klan.

“This is my place of business,” he declared. “I did a lot of work to get people on the ballot so women would have the right to choose in the state of Idaho, and this is something I do not support, nor does my wife, and it’s our business. So we have that choice.”

In my view, they do have that choice. Yet it must also be acknowledged what Sheehan is doing is far more extreme than what Phillips did in Masterpiece Cakeshop. He is not being asked to create a coffee concoction opposing abortion, like a Cafe Au Life specialty drink. He acknowledges that other groups might use the shop – he just does not want these teenagers to use it to support pro-life causes.

The same controversy arose the same week across the country in Virginia. In Alexandria, Fatana Karimi, owner of the Karimi Salon, threw out a woman after she revealed that she was Israeli. Jessica Walton posted an account of the encounter, and a video was later posted on social media.

In the video, the person identified as Karimi says that she declared on Instagram that she would not serve those who support Israel. (She also adds that she got Walton to sign a release for the video.)

The Virginia Human Rights Act states that businesses cannot engage in “unlawful discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, or military status.” Karimi will likely argue she refused service not due to Walton’s religion or national origin, but due to her support for Israel – a political position.

The case is reminiscent of the abusive treatment afforded to Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz at Martha’s Vineyard by a pierogi stand. He was also refused service over his political views.

The line between national origin and religious discrimination versus political discrimination can be tenuous and unclear. However, in the video, the owner states that it is her national identity that is causing the action: “Get out of my shop. I can’t provide service to an Israeli. It’s against my political beliefs. You need to leave immediately.”

Back in Idaho, Sheehan’s bizarre analogy to the KKK outraged many, to the point that he later apologized for it. However, it is fascinating that liberals are now celebrating the right to exclude others for political or religious reasons, even when they are not asked to engage in any expressive act or make any creative product that contravenes their beliefs.

If that is now the case, many owe individuals such as Phillips an apology for years of costly lawsuits, even after the Supreme Court gave him his first nominal victory.

Sheehan could be prosecuted if he were refusing general service or accommodations to the teenagers due to their race or religion. But he is refusing service on the basis of his own political views. Wydaho Roasters does not appear to want business from people who are pro-life, of whom there might be quite a few in Idaho. Karimi appears not to want either Israeli or possibly Jewish customers. It is a curious business plan to exclude such a large segment of the market, but some owners are sure to put their political views before their profits.

However, those on the left cannot have it both ways. They cannot reject the free speech rights of some owners to decline service while celebrating others’ refusal to do the same thing. None of this is likely to make society any more civil. No one wants a black eye to go with the red-eye espresso.

Of course, recognizing the free speech rights of an unhinged coffee shop owner does not require patronizing his establishment. Sheehan clearly does not want to serve pro-life citizens, and I expect the feeling is mutual.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” He is a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors.

By Michael Every of Rabobank

US Treasury Secretary Bessent took out a tactical nuke in saying he could use $1trn from the Treasury General Account to fund Special Military Operation Twist bond buybacks vs. the $2bn per round increase we saw last week. That looks a lot like the ‘Whatever It Takes’ mentioned yesterday: his former mentor Stan Druckenmiller is not a fan, apparently.

He also launched ‘Operation Economic Outcast’ to isolate and squeeze Iran further on top of US sanctions and a blockade against its oil. Those helping Iran will face secondary sanctions escalating to their removal from the US dollar system, as nuclear a weapon as financial warfare can wield. However, when asked why he didn’t impose them immediately, Bessent replied, “Why would I want to blow up the global financial system?” He will first try to persuade key parties to walk away from Iran: yet some have real nuclear weapons and others control rare earths and global supply chains. The stakes here are therefore sky high, unless this is a bluff.

Tehran said it would retaliate to sanctions by land, sea, air, or cyber-attacks; trolled it might kill Barron Trump, as Israeli PM Netanyahu claimed it had threatened one his sons too; continued to threaten ships transiting Hormuz; the Houthis struck a Saudi tanker in the Red Sea, which neither Egypt nor Turkey responded to; the Saudis held talks about a state-backed war insurance plan for shipping like the US one that didn’t work; China sent PLA jets to drill alongside Egypt’s; China reported it has boosted coal’s economic value by 700% after turning it to liquids, underlining it’s much more energy secure than before; a US defence start-up is making thousands of drone interceptors in the UAE for $5,000, cheaper than Iranian attack drones; and Greece warned Turkey against violating its “sovereign rights” and vowed to respond from a “position of strength.”

In Ukraine, EU leaders, and no US representative, offered help to Kyiv as it faces another €23n defense funding hole, albeit managing to hit Russia’s Afipsky oil refinery as well as another e-commerce giant. Russia threatened to hit UK factories making defence parts for Ukraine.

Trump may impose a 7.5% ‘overcapacity’ tariff on China ahead of the Xi state visit, clearly a negotiating card. He will also raise the tariff on Canadian autos and trucks from 25% to 50% from 1 January in response to PM Carney’s ‘elbows up’. Ottawa now faces the choice of matching those tariffs, retreating, or doing what those who oppose tariffs as self-harm never do: slash their levies and enjoy cheap imports replacing local production. Alberta Premier Smith, where a vote on a secession referendum looms in October, had to stress it’s “not viable” to cut off energy exports to the US; and with warnings US-Canada trade war could affect their defence relationship, Carney said he will begin negotiations with the EU about deepening trade and defence relations.

That makes political but not geostrategic sense. Canada isn’t in Europe so can’t join the EU, but if it were to enter a customs union it would surrender sovereignty: and would Europe buy Canadian cars, trucks, planes, agri products, or its fossil fuels given plans to decarbonise? They’d like its critical minerals, but can buy them now. Canada would be sending its goods to a bloc far away over seas neither it nor the EU have the navies to protect, as both are defense under-spenders relative to their huge needs. Both rely on the US for defense and, increasingly, for AI. Yet both assume a benign US stance if they push ahead without it, strategically, even while saying they are doing so because they don’t see the US as benign. That logical inconsistency implies either the strategy is hollow, or will need filling with a greater shift to economic statecraft replete with risks.

Equally, some may picture a ‘blue’ bloc from Canada to Armenia as Yerevan said it will hold a referendum on EU membership soon, shifting the bloc further east and Russia-EU tensions higher. UK PM Burnham also made more mandate-free noises about rejoining in the future. 

Yet Politico underlines the German AfD — cosy with the Kremlin and wishing to leave the euro and Schengen — will win the 6 September state election in Saxony-Anhalt. The plan to deal with that ranges from ignoring to defunding Saxony to banning the AfD: are those a basis for long-term political stability? In early 2027, France then has a presidential election that could pit nationalist Le Pen vs. leftist Melenchon: both want to tear norms up, the latter to tear French debt up too. What’s the correct interest rate or FTA for these kinds of structural problems?

The new Rhine Group think tank led by Draghi states that for the EU, “The stakes are existential.” It underlines, “Europe is in a harder place than when the future of European competitiveness report was released… If stagnation continues, the continent will progressively lose the ability to fund the core obligations of a modern state: defence, public healthcare, pensions, education, climate investments, and safety nets for those who lose their jobs… Decline is not inevitable, but it is the direction we are heading unless we take urgent action.” The warning that “slow agony” lay ahead without radical, rapid EU change failed to produce anything much: will this report do the trick?

Meanwhile, showing how the world now works, the US(!) is opening up Venezuela’s telecom sector while excluding Chinese firms, as Fortune magazine floats the idea of the country adopting the US dollar.

In the US, the Supreme Court issued a ruling with potentially huge consequences. It has allowed, for now, a Trump executive order to proceed which strictly monitors mail-in voting and requires tighter control of who is listed as a voter and the envelopes used to do, at a time when the president has quietly asserted control over the postal service, according to the New York Times. Those making market, or geostrategic, gambles on midterm outcomes assuming that the magical mystery tour of mail-in votes will be cast in the same way they have may be in for a surprise – or so Republicans seem to feel. 

The Trump admin also proposed a staggering $103,000 fee for H-1B visas, effectively shutting off that avenue for all but the highest-earning immigrants, and is preparing to revoke the visas of up to 200K foreigners in largest mass action ever. That looks like a midterm-focused policy.

In short, there is a lot of economic outcasting going on right now. It’s just not clear who is going to be in and who is going to be out, and with whom, when the dust settles – and we can expect serious dustups in that process.

None of that mattered to the RBA’s majorly monomaniacal meeting minutes, which showed that it left rates on hold on the view that inflation was easing and so was the tight labour market. All of the above backdrop was cast out of that forecast, as is the case with other central banks. To be fair, how does one include it? To be just as fair, how can one exclude it? Maybe Warsh will have something to say on not saying anything about that on Friday.  

President Donald Trump drew fresh attention to a long-running controversy on Sunday when he reposted a Just the News article on Truth Social headlined “ICE refuses to disclose records on Ilhan Omar fraud probe, cites ongoing ‘enforcement proceedings.'” His decision to amplify the report, without comment, renewed scrutiny of allegations that have dogged Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for years – though ICE’s response stops short of confirming she is personally the target of any active proceeding.

The Trump administration has said for months it possesses evidence that Omar committed immigration fraud. What has remained unclear is whether that evidence translates into an indictment, a denaturalization proceeding, or nothing at all.

Just the News filed a Freedom of Information Act request in January 2026 for records related to Omar’s marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a man whose identity, evidence suggests, is that of her brother. ICE’s response cited a specific legal exemption rather than denying or providing a timeline. “ICE has determined that the information you requested is being withheld in full pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)(A),” the agency wrote. “Disclosure of any responsive records at this time could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.”

Department of Justice guidance requires a two-step showing before an agency can invoke it. “First, there must be a ‘reasonable likelihood’ of a pending or contemplated law enforcement proceeding,” the guidance states. “Second, release of the information must be reasonably expected to cause some articulable harm to that proceeding.” ICE cleared both hurdles by its own estimation; whether that estimation holds up matters more now that the president has amplified it himself.

While no court has established as fact that Ahmed Nur Said Elmi is Omar’s brother, the most detailed public claim comes from the government of Somaliland. This territory, which split from Somalia in 1991, claimed back in March that Omar’s original last name was Elmi before it was changed, and that this evidence “was available, but the Obama Justice Department refused to investigate.”

The allegations that Omar married her brother first surfaced during Omar’s 2016 campaign for a seat in the Minnesota House, alongside a separate claim that she remained legally married to her first husband when she married Elmi.

Omar was born in Somalia and lived in a refugee camp in Kenya before coming to the United States in 1995. She applied for a marriage license with Ahmed Hirsi in 2002 but never married him civilly, only through a Muslim ceremony. The two separated in 2008. Omar married Elmi the following year, then split from him in 2011 through another Muslim divorce. She resumed her relationship with Hirsi in 2012, a year before she won her seat in the Minnesota House. Omar did not file for a formal divorce from Elmi until 2017, and she married Hirsi civilly in 2018, sixteen years after they first applied for that license.

Omar’s campaign denied both allegations against her. “Allegations that she married her brother and is legally married to two people are categorically ridiculous and false,” said then-campaign spokesman Ben Goldfarb.