69.2 F
Chicago
Thursday, September 17, 2026
Home Blog Page 232

The World Is Becoming Increasingly Divided By Fertility

The World Is Becoming Increasingly Divided By Fertility

The world is becoming increasingly divided by fertility.

One group of countries now has too few births to naturally replace its population, while another continues to see population growth driven by higher fertility rates. This demographic divide has major implications for aging populations, labor markets, immigration, and future economic growth.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins, shows which countries are above and below the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, using projections for 2025 from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 Revision.

While the regional patterns are striking, several countries buck the trend.

Fertility Rates by Country

The table below lists projected fertility rates for 2025 and whether each country falls above or below the 2.1 replacement threshold.

Country Total Fertility Rate (TFR) Above or Below 2.1
(Replacement Rate)
Chad 5.94 Above
Somalia 5.91 Above
DR Congo 5.90 Above
Central African Republic 5.81 Above
Niger 5.79 Above
Mali 5.42 Above
Angola 4.95 Above
Burundi 4.68 Above
Afghanistan 4.66 Above
Mozambique 4.62 Above
Mauritania 4.56 Above
Mayotte 4.50 Above
Tanzania 4.47 Above
Benin 4.42 Above
Yemen 4.41 Above
Nigeria 4.30 Above
Sudan 4.19 Above
Cameroon 4.19 Above
Ivory Coast 4.17 Above
Togo 4.07 Above
Uganda 4.06 Above
Congo 4.05 Above
Guinea 4.04 Above
Equatorial Guinea 4.04 Above
Burkina Faso 4.00 Above
Zambia 3.97 Above
Madagascar 3.84 Above
Ethiopia 3.81 Above
Gambia 3.80 Above
Liberia 3.79 Above
Comoros 3.76 Above
Samoa 3.75 Above
Senegal 3.71 Above
South Sudan 3.71 Above
Guinea-Bissau 3.68 Above
Zimbabwe 3.62 Above
Sierra Leone 3.61 Above
Eritrea 3.61 Above
Rwanda 3.59 Above
Gabon 3.54 Above
Malawi 3.53 Above
Vanuatu 3.53 Above
Sao Tome and Principe 3.53 Above
Pakistan 3.50 Above
Solomon Islands 3.47 Above
Uzbekistan 3.45 Above
Ghana 3.30 Above
French Guiana 3.29 Above
Nauru 3.25 Above
Palestine 3.19 Above
Iraq 3.17 Above
Namibia 3.17 Above
Tuvalu 3.14 Above
Kenya 3.12 Above
Kiribati 3.09 Above
Tonga 3.07 Above
Papua New Guinea 3.03 Above
Tajikistan 2.99 Above
Kazakhstan 2.95 Above
Marshall Islands 2.82 Above
Israel 2.75 Above
Kyrgyzstan 2.75 Above
Egypt 2.71 Above
Guam 2.71 Above
Micronesia 2.71 Above
Eswatini 2.68 Above
Algeria 2.67 Above
Syria 2.66 Above
Botswana 2.66 Above
Lesotho 2.64 Above
Turkmenistan 2.63 Above
Saint Martin (French part) 2.63 Above
Haiti 2.59 Above
Mongolia 2.58 Above
Djibouti 2.58 Above
Jordan 2.57 Above
Tokelau 2.57 Above
Timor-Leste 2.56 Above
Cambodia 2.51 Above
Bolivia 2.50 Above
Oman 2.48 Above
Niue 2.46 Above
Honduras 2.45 Above
Paraguay 2.39 Above
Guyana 2.37 Above
Laos 2.36 Above
Saudi Arabia 2.29 Above
Northern Mariana Islands 2.28 Above
Guatemala 2.26 Above
Libya 2.25 Above
Fiji 2.25 Above
American Samoa 2.25 Above
Lebanon 2.21 Above
Suriname 2.21 Above
Faroe Islands 2.20 Above
South Africa 2.19 Above
Dominican Republic 2.19 Above
Morocco 2.18 Above
Nicaragua 2.18 Above
Western Sahara 2.15 Above
Réunion 2.13 Above
Bangladesh 2.11 Above
Indonesia 2.10 Above
Panama 2.09 Below
Monaco 2.09 Below
Myanmar 2.08 Below
Seychelles 2.08 Below
United States Virgin Islands 2.07 Below
Venezuela 2.06 Below
Guadeloupe 2.05 Below
Belize 2.01 Below
Cook Islands 2.00 Below
Martinique 1.97 Below
New Caledonia 1.95 Below
India 1.94 Below
Peru 1.94 Below
Nepal 1.94 Below
Sri Lanka 1.94 Below
Greenland 1.91 Below
Philippines 1.88 Below
Vietnam 1.88 Below
Gibraltar 1.88 Below
Mexico 1.87 Below
Palau 1.86 Below
Tunisia 1.80 Below
Montenegro 1.80 Below
Ecuador 1.79 Below
Georgia 1.79 Below
Bahrain 1.78 Below
Dem. People’s Republic of Korea 1.77 Below
El Salvador 1.75 Below
St. Vincent & Grenadines 1.75 Below
Bulgaria 1.74 Below
Moldova 1.72 Below
Romania 1.71 Below
Armenia 1.71 Below
Brunei 1.71 Below
Qatar 1.70 Below
Barbados 1.70 Below
Falkland Islands 1.69 Below
Iran 1.67 Below
Azerbaijan 1.66 Below
New Zealand 1.65 Below
France 1.64 Below
Australia 1.64 Below
St. Helena 1.64 Below
United States 1.62 Below
Turkey 1.62 Below
Colombia 1.62 Below
Aruba 1.61 Below
Brazil 1.60 Below
Ireland 1.60 Below
Slovenia 1.58 Below
Antigua and Barbuda 1.58 Below
Slovakia 1.57 Below
Maldives 1.55 Below
United Kingdom 1.54 Below
Liechtenstein 1.54 Below
Malaysia 1.53 Below
Kosovo (under UNSC res. 1244) 1.53 Below
Isle of Man 1.53 Below
Portugal 1.52 Below
Denmark 1.52 Below
Trinidad and Tobago 1.52 Below
Cayman Islands 1.51 Below
St. Kitts & Nevis 1.51 Below
Argentina 1.50 Below
Hungary 1.50 Below
Serbia 1.50 Below
Kuwait 1.50 Below
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1.50 Below
Cape Verde 1.50 Below
Iceland 1.50 Below
French Polynesia 1.48 Below
Czechia 1.47 Below
Croatia 1.47 Below
North Macedonia 1.47 Below
Dominica 1.47 Below
Russia 1.46 Below
Germany 1.46 Below
Grenada 1.46 Below
Cuba 1.45 Below
Bonaire 1.45 Below
Montserrat 1.45 Below
Netherlands 1.44 Below
Sweden 1.44 Below
Switzerland 1.44 Below
Bhutan 1.44 Below
Turks and Caicos Islands 1.44 Below
Sint Maarten 1.43 Below
Norway 1.42 Below
Bermuda 1.41 Below
Luxembourg 1.40 Below
Wallis & Futuna 1.40 Below
Belgium 1.39 Below
Uruguay 1.39 Below
St. Lucia 1.38 Below
Jersey 1.38 Below
Cyprus 1.37 Below
Estonia 1.37 Below
Guernsey 1.37 Below
Bahamas 1.36 Below
Latvia 1.35 Below
Anguilla 1.35 Below
Greece 1.34 Below
Jamaica 1.34 Below
Canada 1.33 Below
Austria 1.33 Below
Albania 1.33 Below
Poland 1.31 Below
Costa Rica 1.31 Below
Finland 1.30 Below
Saint Pierre and Miquelon 1.28 Below
Japan 1.23 Below
Spain 1.23 Below
Belarus 1.22 Below
Lithuania 1.22 Below
Italy 1.21 Below
United Arab Emirates 1.21 Below
Mauritius 1.21 Below
Thailand 1.19 Below
San Marino 1.16 Below
Chile 1.13 Below
Malta 1.11 Below
Andorra 1.10 Below
Curacao 1.07 Below
British Virgin Islands 1.06 Below
China 1.02 Below
Ukraine 1.00 Below
Singapore 0.96 Below
Puerto Rico 0.94 Below
Taiwan 0.86 Below
St. Barthélemy 0.83 Below
South Korea 0.75 Below
Hong Kong 0.74 Below
Macao 0.69 Below

The Great Fertility Divide

The divide is strikingly regional.

Europe is entirely below replacement fertility, joined by most countries across the Americas and East Asia. Meanwhile, most African countries, along with parts of the Middle East, Central Asia, and Southeast Asia, remain above the replacement threshold.

The map also reveals several notable exceptions.

Geographic Pockets That Buck the Trend

While regional patterns are remarkably consistent, several countries stand out as exceptions to their neighbors:

  • Central America: Honduras, Nicaragua, and Guatemala all have fertility rates just over replacement. On both the north and south sides, virtually every other country in the Americas is below replacement.
  • Africa: Tunisia is the sole country in continental Africa with a rate under 2.1.
  • South America: There are two pockets of higher fertility: Peru and Paraguay, and the Guianas (Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana).
  • Middle East: UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain are below 2.1, while surrounding nations in virtually every direction are above replacement.
  • South/Central Asia: A strip of connected countries, from Pakistan all the way up through Kazakhstan to Mongolia, has higher fertility. Bangladesh also stands out as higher fertility.
  • Southeast Asia: Laos and Cambodia stand out as above replacement. Indonesia is the only country with exactly a 2.1 fertility rate, equal to replacement.

Most of these outliers are countries at different stages of the demographic transition than their neighbors.

Their fertility rates remain above or below replacement while surrounding countries have already moved in the other direction, creating pockets that stand apart from the broader regional pattern.

If you enjoyed today’s post, see Japan’s birthrate collapse over the last 60 years in this visualization on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 06:55

The US Should Exit The UN

The US Should Exit The UN

Authored by Wendy McElroy via The Brownstone Institute,

The future of the United Nations (UN) is in play, largely because of its refusal to censure Iran—a member nation.

In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio reprimanded the UN:

“If you’re telling me that the international community and hundreds of countries cannot rally behind that, then I don’t know what the utility of the UN system is.” 

Severing all ties to the UN could require an act of Congress, but the US is moving in this direction. On February 4, 2025, Executive Order 14199 directed the US to withdraw from 31 UN organisations. A great deal hinges on how highly Rubio still prizes America’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council which comes with a veto.

The UN is often viewed as an ineffectual bureaucracy that occasionally does some good. It is nothing so benevolent. Its origins may have been well-meaning, but the current UN has become what it claims to oppose. The US should leave the UN altogether and immediately, especially since its unjust policies are likely to get worse…and soon.

The UN’s Original Mission

The UN Charter (1945) opens,

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women…  

The Preamble of its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) states, 

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Article 2 of the Declaration provides, 

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex…

‘All human beings are equal’ is the basis of Western justice, whether the equality is under nature, God, or law. Instead of pursuing equality, however, the UN is now a woke and corrupt actor that creates inequality and division. The UN’s financial malfeasance, the sexual abuse by field personnel, its demonization of the West…are well documented in the 104-page report From Watchdogs to Ideologues: How Politicized UN Rapporteurs Are Subverting Human Rights by the Geneva-based NGO UN Watch

The UN’s demonstrated commitment is to social justice or a wokeness rooted in equity, not equality. Equity seeks the redistribution of wealth and power to those who are considered oppressed from those who are considered oppressors. Equity is the opposite of equality under the law.

Consider its treatment of men who clearly are not viewed as equal to women, as the UN’s mission claims. An obvious example is the prominent presence of the UN Women commission that claims to be “the global champion for gender equality.” The commission identifies its goal as ensuring “every woman and girl lives up to her full potential.” No mention of men or boys. No comparable UN Men agency, although males are included peripherally by recognizing a need to train them to oppose patriarchy. The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) explains, 

UNFPA works with men and boys around the world to advance gender equality and end violence. These programmes are encouraging men and boys to abandon harmful stereotypes, embrace respectful, healthy relationships, and support the human rights of all people, everywhere.

Men face many of the same global problems as women, however, including poverty, lack of education, violence, disease and harmful stereotypes. Men also face unique problems, including male-only conscription, paternity fraud, false rape accusations, and longer sentences for the same crimes. Nevertheless, compared to the UN’s emphasis on women, men are virtually ignored. And deliberately so.

The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is considered by many to be the international bill of rights for women. Again, no comparable agency exists for men. The FAQ of one CEDAW branch speaks of substantive justice for women. 

Substantive justice judges fairness by results rather than a process; it favors the equitable distribution of rights, not equal rights. CEDAW states, “The concept of substantive equality arose out of the recognition that formal equality may not be sufficient to ensure that women enjoy the same rights as men. An ostensibly gender-neutral policy, while not excluding women per se, may result in a de facto discrimination against women.” 

Instead, in the name of equality, the UN discriminates against men. It denounces the “poison of patriarchy,” decries the manosphere, and discusses the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender movement is defined as groups with an agenda of harming radical feminist and LGBTQIA+ policies. Even questioning these policies or advocating parallel ones for men seems to be anti-gender. 

Earlier, I stated the UN’s policies are likely to get worse and soon. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres steps down on December 31, 2026. The leading contender as his replacement is the aggressively woke Michelle Bachelet, who launched UN Women and served as its Executive Director from 2010 to 2013. After this, she acted as United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018 to 2022).

In between stints at the UN, Bachelet served two terms as President of Chile. A prominent member of the Socialist Party of Chile, she mandated 50% female representation in her Cabinet and instituted political quotas to boost women’s presence in government, as well as establishing a Ministry of Women and Gender Equality; again, no comparable Ministry of Men exists.

And, again, the equality pursued was equity because it applied privileges to women. 

While at the UN, some of the global initiatives championed by Bachelet included: 

  • Safe Cities Free of Violence Against Women and Girls to address sexual violence in public spaces. The word “sexual” is key. Even the U.N. admits men experience more physical violence in public (81%) compared to women (19%). It is not clear the rate at which men experience sexual violence, however, as men report such abuse at a far lower rate than women.

  • Fund for Gender Equality to provide money exclusively to women to empower them at the grassroots level. Males can access other U.N. gender funds but only in order to dismantle gender inequality, not to empower themselves. Men are to act as gender allies and “agents of change.”

  • Increasing Women’s Access to Justice in Post-Conflict Societies to support transitional justice and women’s human rights in conflict and post-conflict zones. 

Everyone has the right to discriminate peacefully on his own time and dime. But the UN is primarily funded by mandatory assessed and voluntary contributions from its member nations; that is, by tax dollars extracted from individuals, half of whom are men and many who are dissenting women, like me. 

The good news: there are rumors of the UN’s financial collapse since some member states—most prominently the US—are withholding their contributions. The US alone owes $2.196 billion to the regular budget and $1.8 billion to separate peacekeeping operations, which amounts to about one-quarter of UN funding. Without it, the UN will be sorely diminished in status.

Good. And if the UN does collapse, then better.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 06:30

Kremlin Confirms Rare Talks To Import Gasoline Amid Drone Strike Mayhem

Kremlin Confirms Rare Talks To Import Gasoline Amid Drone Strike Mayhem

Russia has confirmed its government is currently in negotiations with other countries to purchase gasoline while desperately seeking to stabilize its domestic market after months drone mayhem out of Ukraine.

“Discussions are actively being held,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said at a press briefing Tuesday, though without specifying which countries. “If agreements can be reached at acceptable price points, then [imports] will move forward,” he added.

File image: UBN

The development is surprising given that Russia remains the world’s second-largest crude oil exporter and third-largest supplier of refined petroleum products – and yet it is now facing the somewhat humiliating prospect of importing gasoline.

Last week, Reuters dropped a bombshell citing industry insiders who revealed that Moscow has been in backroom talks to import a staggering 50,000 metric tons of AI-92 grade gasoline from neighboring Kazakhstan. India has also been mentioned in reports.

President Putin just over the weekend estimated Russia’s total gasoline reserves to be at at 1.7 million metric tons, which would constitute a 4% decline compared to the same period last year. Politico notes further:

Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak has described imports as one of the government’s key tools for stabilizing the market, while Russian lawmakers last week approved tax changes creating subsidies to help finance gasoline purchases from abroad.

Putin had further in a speech and separate interview belatedly acknowledged Sunday that his country is facing a “certain shortage” of fuel following weeks of ramped-up drone warfare coming out of Ukraine, which has chiefly targeted oil refineries and domestic supply facilities, including in the Moscow region.

“As for strikes against critical infrastructure in general, and energy infrastructure in particular, of course, these attacks on our infrastructure facilities create problems,” Putin said“That’s obvious.

“Right now we’re observing a certain shortage, but it’s not critical,” he added. He also made wide-ranging public remarks at a major summit of the ruling ‘United Russia’ party.

Some Western pundits have agreed that the situation is not yet critical, and that a fuel squeeze has been a long-running Ukrainian goal of its intensified drone attacks…

A state of emergency for all citizens was also declared in Crimea last week – with fuel only being provided to military and state entities at this point.

Putin further acknowledged in his recent comments that small, slow-moving drones have proven a problem for Russia’s anti-air defense systems, which were conventionally designed to intercept large fast projectiles like missiles or warplanes.

This has been big on Russians’ minds, as this month they beheld unprecedented scenes of massive smoke plumes overtaking Moscow’s skyline, as a key refinery there burned. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 05:45

Police Flee During Riots In The Hague After Morocco Knocks Netherlands Out Of World Cup

Police Flee During Riots In The Hague After Morocco Knocks Netherlands Out Of World Cup

Via Remix News,

After Morocco knocked the Dutch national football team out of the World Cup, rioting broke out this morning in The Hague, with dramatic footage showing Dutch motorcycle police fleeing from Moroccan supporters. Police also deployed water cannons to control the crowd and at least a dozen people were reportedly arrested.

The video of the Dutch police fleeing prompted a sharp reaction from anti-immigration political leader Geert Wilders, who wrote: “Sweep those streets clean and ship the riffraff with their families off to Morocco. This is our country. Get lost!”

Moroccans gathered in the streets, blocking traffic, and chanting with Moroccan flags. Some supporters danced on car roofs. Many of them are Dutch citizens and second- and even third-generation citizens.

Police regrouped and conducted baton charges, deployed water cannons, and made targeted arrests. A spokesperson said that water cannons were deployed after police were targeted with stones and fireworks.

With the Moroccan football team advancing in the World Cup, police across Europe are likely to be nervous about upcoming football games involving the North African team.

In previous years, Moroccan victories at football sporting events have led to mayhem and mass riots. In fact, it was already in 2022 that Wilders was urging mass deportations in reactions to major riots following victories of the Moroccan national team.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 05:00

Heat Mortality Surges In Europe

Heat Mortality Surges In Europe

Heat-related mortality in Europe has surged over the last couple of decades.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, according to the latest available data published by the Lancet Countdown 2025 Report, between 2012 and 2021, 5.5 people per 100,000 population died of heat-related causes per year on the continent.

This is almost double the annual rate observed between 1992 and 2021.

Infographic: Heat Mortality Surges in Europe | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

Similarly rapid surges were observed over the same time period in Asia-Pacific as well as in the Americas.

However, heat deaths stayed on a lower level in these regions and reached only an annual 3.4 and 2.1 in 100,000, respectively, during the last decade.

All three continents in question have an aging population, making heatwaves more deadly as it is older people who predominantly succumb to heat-related causes.

But Europe is also less prepared than other continents for a changing climate as its many temperate regions have not built for the heat and have traditionally neither been equipped for it, may that be in terms of air conditioner ownership or knowledge of ways to stay cool.

Hotter (and younger) regions of the globe have not seen the same developments in heat-related mortality, even though they do experience consistently higher levels of it.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, North Africa and the Middle East as well as South and Southeast Asia, brutal heatwaves claim the lives between nine and 14 people per 100,000 every year.

In all three regions, this figure has changed by at most 10 percent since the 1990s.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 04:15

Ukraine’s Desperate Propaganda Campaign While Russia Advances Along The Entire Front

Ukraine’s Desperate Propaganda Campaign While Russia Advances Along The Entire Front

Authored by Larry Johnson via Sonar21.com

Volodymyr Zelensky and his Western backers have launched a desperate 40-day “campaign of terrors” — which includes a mix of military escalations and a massive information/psyops operation designed to portray Russia as collapsing and Putin as facing an imminent uprising or coup. The goal is to force Russia into a ceasefire. Western audiences are being flooded with social media and regular media articles that paint a dire picture of Russia’s military campaign, while touting Ukraine’s incredible accomplishments. It is all a load of crap, but that is all the West has left in its quiver as Russia’s campaign of attrition continues to pulverize Ukraine.

The Western-led propaganda campaign consists of the following elements:

  • Information Warfare — Heavy push of 24/7 propaganda about Putin’s “imminent downfall,” including staged videos of supposed Russian soldiers announcing a mutiny.
  • Fake Psyops — Coordinated attempts to stoke panic in Russia (e.g., false claims of fuel/gas shortages, which were partly caused by panic buying triggered by the rumors).
  • Symbolic Actions — Staged drone flag-drops (e.g., on the Kinburn Spit near Crimea) meant to symbolize Russian retreat and collapse — quickly debunked and mocked.
  • Broader Objective — Combine these narratives with actual strikes on Russian infrastructure to create the impression of regime instability, pressuring Putin politically.

Now for the reality. Yes, Ukraine has hit some Russian refineries and created some spectacular visuals of billowing smoke and fire. However, this is nothing more than military political theater that is intended to distract from Ukraine’s setbacks all along the front. As a side note, Russian oil exports have increased during this same period, putting to bed the narrative that Russia’s oil industry in suffering catastrophic losses.

via Reuters

Here is a summary of Russian activity, starting in the Northern section of the front:

Sumy Direction

In the Sumy direction, the “North” assault groups advanced on 19 sectors, and some units of Ukraine’s 104th Territorial Defense Brigade abandoned their positions in Bachevsk. Russian forces continued active operations along the border, conducting strikes on Ukrainian positions and logistics. They reported repelling multiple Ukrainian attempts to cross into Russian territory and inflicting significant losses on enemy manpower and equipment. Russian soldiers are now only a few kilometers from Sumy itself.

Kharkiv Direction

Russian troops advanced in several sectors north and northeast of Kharkiv. The MOD reported the liberation of additional border settlements and improvement of tactical positions. Russian Geran drones conduct a series of high-precision strikes on gas infrastructure in Kharkiv region overnight. A gas distribution station near Panyutino was struck — disabling gas storage tanks, gas pumping plants, and a gas treatment facility. The Skvortsovskaya gas treatment system near Kosogorovka was also hit.​​ Ukrainian counterattacks were repelled, with Russian artillery and aviation playing a key role in degrading enemy capabilities.

Donetsk Direction (Primary Focus)

Donetsk remains the main direction of Russian offensive operations. Russian troops are steadily advancing on the Pokrovsk axis, with Russian forces capturing multiple settlements and pushing toward key logistical nodes. The most notable achievement is in Konstantinovka, where Russian units have taken control of most of the city and disrupted Ukrainian supply lines. With both Pokrovsk and Konstantinovka gone, Russia controls the two southern and eastern approaches that previously buffered the Kramatorsk-Sloviansk agglomeration. The H-32 Pokrovsk-Konstantinovka highway and the T-0504 Bakhmut-Pokrovsk highway — both of which Russian forces had been fighting to seize specifically to link these two axes — now forms a contiguous corridor under Russian control, allowing logistics and force concentration to flow directly toward Druzhkivka and Kramatorsk without contesting two separate urban battles.The Russians also are advancing around Chasiv Yar and Toretsk, including gains in urban fighting and elevated positions.

Overall, the Russian MOD described consistent liberation of territory, high daily Ukrainian losses, and effective use of glide bombs, drones, and artillery to support ground advances.

Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (Dnipro region)

In the Dnipropetrovsk direction, the 36th Guards Motorized Rifle Brigade captured Bogodarivka, the third settlement in three days since crossing the Dnieper River. Russian forces continue conducting regular long-range strikes (missiles and drones) on military-industrial targets, energy infrastructure, and logistical hubs in the oblast. Key targets included defense factories, repair facilities, and rail nodes supporting the Ukrainian front.

Zaporizhzhia Direction

In the Zaporozhye area, Russian forces have blocked a Ukrainian bridgehead in Aleksandrovka and have reached the southern outskirts of Pokrovskoye. After Russian forces took control of Novy Donbass, they advanced towards Shevchenko and Svetloye, isolating Ukrainian forward positions with drones. Russian forces maintain pressure through artillery, drone strikes, and localized assaults, destroying Ukrainian strongholds and equipment while holding defensive lines.

Kherson Direction

Operations remained largely positional along the Dnipro River. The Russian MOD highlighted successful strikes on Ukrainian crossings, logistics, and manpower concentrations on the right bank. Russian units conducted raids and maintained control over left-bank positions.

In other words, the Russian summer offensive is underway and Ukraine, despite its propaganda offensive, is retreating to the west.

*  *  *

Disclaimer: Contributor posts published on Zero Hedge do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Zero Hedge.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 03:30

These Countries Are Building The Most Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

These Countries Are Building The Most Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

The U.S. is leading the world in small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) development with 28 siting announcements, as of 2026.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Cody Good, in partnership with the National Public Utilities Council, shows which countries are building the most SMRs.

The U.S. Leads Global SMR Development

With 28 siting announcements, the U.S. has more SMR projects in development than the next four countries combined.

 

Source: The Nuclear Energy Agency

Only 78 of 129 SMR designs being tracked by the NEA are publicly reported in the digital dashboard. The rest have either requested not to be included or are not under active development.

Across the U.S., national laboratories lead in siting announcements (7), followed by a three-way tie among utilities, universities, and SMR developers (5 each).

Why Small Modular Reactors Matter

SMRs are a critical clean-energy technology that are cheaper and more flexible than traditional nuclear power generation.

  • Small: SMRs can produce up to 300 MWe, far less than traditional reactors, which typically produce around 1,000–1,400 MWe. 
  • Modular: SMRs are designed for mass factory manufacturing to reduce cost and build time.
  • Reactor: The four main reactor types are light water reactors, fast neutron reactors, graphite-moderated high temperature reactors, and molten salt reactors.

Their compact, modular design enables easier transport and deployment ideal for data centers or remote sites where grid connection is costly or unnecessary.

The Role of SMRs in the Future of Power

As electricity demand accelerates, SMRs are becoming an increasingly important part of conversations around grid reliability, energy security, and clean firm power. 

For utilities and policymakers, tracking where these projects are emerging can help inform planning, policy, and long-term strategy.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 02:45

Will Denmark Really Ban The Islamic Call To Prayer?

Will Denmark Really Ban The Islamic Call To Prayer?

Via Remix News,

Denmark’s government, led by the center-left Social Democrats, has once again announced plans to pursue a nationwide ban on the public broadcast of the Islamic call to prayer via loudspeakers. This now amounts to the third time the center-left government is trying to ban the call to prayer.

Immigration and Integration Minister Morten Bødskov stated that the government is investigating a legal framework to prohibit amplified calls to prayer from mosques.

“The call to prayer should not ring out above the Danish rooftops. It has no place in Denmark; one should not wonder if one is in a suburb of Islamabad when walking around the country,” he told the press.

However, this is the third attempt by the ruling party, with previous efforts in 2020 and 2025 failing to pass. Will the third time be a charm?

One of the major hurdles is that Danish law protects religious freedom, and any blanket national ban on amplified calls to prayer has raised concerns about violating the rights of Muslims. The government needed to investigate whether such a prohibition could withstand legal scrutiny when balanced against residents’ rights to a quiet environment. Past efforts stalled during this review process without advancing to enforceable legislation.

Furthermore, many areas of the country have already banned the call to prayer, such as the biggest city, Copenhagen. These areas have achieved this through existing local noise bylaws or municipal regulations, reducing the urgency for a sweeping national law. This has historically made a new nationwide framework harder to justify or pass.

One attempt to ban the call to prayer was also reportedly interrupted by parliamentary elections, which led to a shift in government priorities at the time.

Denmark is arguably the Scandinavian nation most hostile to mass immigration, with the left-wing parties there considered to have right-wing policies on the issue. However, parties to the right, which call for remigration and even stricter action, argue that legal migration, including from Third World and Muslim countries, has been steadily increasing under the left-wing Social Democrat government.

The current immigration minister, Bødskov, is actually considered “softer” on immigration than his predecessors, such as Rasmus Stoklund and Kaare Dybvad Bek, who were known for their harsher rhetoric against mass immigration. His tough public statements are often viewed as necessary political positioning to align with the party’s established tough stance towards immigration under Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, rather than his personal views on the subject.

Nevertheless, it remains unclear how far Bødskov is willing to go or if this announcement is more political posturing. The Danish government is reviewing legality, including compatibility with religious freedom protections in the constitution. The current effort would move beyond local noise regulations to a national prohibition, but no final bill has been introduced yet, and implementation details, such as the exact scope and potential penalties, are still at the discussion phase.

While this renewed push builds on Denmark’s stricter immigration and integration policies, including a recent ban on Islamic full-face veils like the niqab and burqa, it remains to be seen if the government can pull this new proposal off.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/01/2026 – 02:00

Empire At 250: Can The Principles Of 1776 Survive The American Police State?

Empire At 250: Can The Principles Of 1776 Survive The American Police State?

Authored by John & Nisha Whitehead via The Rurtherford Institute,

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power.”

– James Madison

This is a year of strange anniversaries.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, a band of revolutionaries declared their independence from a king.

America’s founders rejected concentrated power. They denounced standing armies. They distrusted government secrecy. They risked their lives to escape a ruler who could tax without consent, wage war without accountability, and govern without meaningful restraint.

Twenty-five years ago, after the attacks of September 11, 2001, America embarked on a very different journey.

The federal government claimed extraordinary emergency powers. Surveillance expanded. Wars multiplied. Executive authority grew. Constitutional safeguards were weakened in the name of security.

One anniversary marked a revolt against empire. The other marked the normalization of it.

Now, as America prepares to celebrate 250 years of independence, we are confronted with a bitter irony: the republic born in rebellion against empire has become an empire in everything but name.

Worse, the U.S. government is violating the very principles that justified the American Revolution.

Graft, grift and corruption. Endless wars. Profiteering. Trillions squandered abroad while the nation sinks deeper into debt at home.

A government that governs increasingly by executive order and emergency decree. A government that wastes taxpayer money with impunity, rewards political loyalty over constitutional fidelity, installs loyalists in positions meant to serve the public, dismantles safeguards against corruption, shields insiders from scrutiny, and treats accountability as an inconvenience.

National states of emergency that never seem to end. Efforts to nullify constitutional guarantees such as birthright citizenship. Expanded death penalty powers. A growing willingness to bypass Congress, sidestep constitutional restraints and rule by fiat.

Surveillance programs that track where we go, what we buy, who we know, what we say and what we believe. Fusion centers, facial recognition, license plate readers, AI-assisted monitoring, financial tracking, intelligence-sharing agreements and a sprawling security apparatus that treats privacy as a loophole and dissent as a threat.

Military action undertaken without congressional authorization. National Guard deployments that blur the line between civilian government and military authority. The militarization of policing. Federal agents arresting people at courthouses. Protesters treated as security threats. Legal residents threatened with deportation because of their political speech and associations. Immigrants and asylum seekers swept up in raids, detained, deported or disappeared into a bureaucratic maze before courts can fully review the legality of what has been done.

Whistleblowers, journalists, activists and critics targeted for speaking truth to power. Expanding “extremist” classifications that increasingly encompass lawful speech, political dissent and ideological opposition rather than criminal conduct.

This is not freedom.

This is the architecture of a police state.

Nor is this merely the accumulated rot of past administrations.

Republican and Democratic presidents alike helped build the machinery of permanent emergency. They expanded the surveillance state, normalized undeclared wars, empowered the military-industrial complex, deferred to intelligence agencies, and taught Americans to accept secrecy, suspicion and fear as the price of safety.

Donald Trump inherited that machinery.

Then he weaponized it.

No modern president has done more to expose the danger of allowing so much power to accumulate in one office.

Trump did not invent the imperial presidency, but he has shown what happens when a president treats constitutional limits as obstacles, dissent as disloyalty, the courts as irritants, Congress as irrelevant and federal power as a personal weapon.

Nor has he hidden his intentions. From efforts to consolidate authority within the executive branch to the installation of loyalists whose allegiance appears directed more toward a president than the Constitution, the Trump Administration has tested the limits of executive power in ways that would have alarmed the generation that fought the Revolution.

We have also witnessed growing efforts to sideline due process protections, weaken the ancient safeguard of habeas corpus, expand detention powers, and normalize the notion that constitutional rights can be suspended whenever government officials invoke national security, immigration enforcement or emergency necessity.

This is what happens when a government built for emergencies never leaves emergency mode.

The danger is no longer hypothetical.

The tools of authoritarianism exist.

The police state machinery exists.

The surveillance apparatus exists.

The permanent war powers exist.

The question is who controls them—and what remains to stop them.

The American Revolution was not fought over minor policy disagreements. It was fought over the danger of unaccountable power. The colonists objected to a king who could deploy troops, impose taxes, conduct searches, punish dissent and wage war without meaningful consent of the governed.

The Declaration of Independence was not merely a list of grievances.

It was an indictment.

King George III had made the military superior to civilian authority. He had maintained standing armies without consent. He had cut off trade, imposed taxes, obstructed justice and transported colonists overseas for trial.

Time and again, the Declaration returned to the same central complaint: concentrated power had become a threat to liberty.

The Revolution was not fought over a tax on tea.

It was fought over the danger of a government that had placed itself above the people.

When the framers later gathered to draft the Constitution, they did so with those lessons fresh in mind.

The founders understood that power is inherently expansive. Given enough time, every government seeks more authority, more secrecy and more control.

That is why they created a constitutional system in which power was divided. The branches were intended to restrain one another. No person was to be trusted with too much authority.

Yet history shows how quickly constitutional restraints weaken in times of fear.

John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts and criminalized political dissent.

Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus.

Woodrow Wilson prosecuted anti-war activists.

Franklin Roosevelt ordered the internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans.

Richard Nixon weaponized federal agencies against political opponents.

Each expansion of executive power was justified as necessary.

Each left constitutional scars.

Then came September 11, 2001.

In the months and years that followed, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, vastly expanding government surveillance powers. The Department of Homeland Security was created. Military tribunals were revived. Warrantless surveillance became commonplace. Watchlists multiplied. Fusion centers spread across the country. Indefinite detention became normalized.

War abroad justified surveillance at home.

Terror threats justified government secrecy.

National crises justified executive emergency powers.

What began as a response to a terrorist attack gradually became a governing philosophy.

Twenty-five years later, the emergency state has become embedded in the architecture of government.

Every crisis expands executive power.

Every war contracts liberty.

Every emergency leaves behind powers that rarely disappear.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

Presidents of both parties have inherited extraordinary powers and expanded them further. Congress has repeatedly surrendered responsibilities it was meant to exercise. Courts have increasingly deferred to executive claims involving national security, immigration and emergency authority.

The result is a government that often functions by executive decree rather than representative self-government.

Executive orders increasingly substitute for legislation. National emergencies become permanent governing authorities. Constitutional guarantees such as birthright citizenship are challenged by presidential decree rather than constitutional amendment. Congress is bypassed. Courts are treated as obstacles. Separation of powers becomes a formality rather than a safeguard.

The presidency has evolved into something the framers would scarcely recognize.

What Donald Trump has done is expose the fatal flaw in the system Americans allowed to be built after 9/11: once government is handed the machinery of permanent emergency, all that remains is for the wrong person to seize the controls.

For decades, Americans were told not to worry.

We were told surveillance powers would only be used against terrorists.

We were told emergency powers would only be invoked during genuine crises.

We were told national security authorities would remain subject to constitutional limits.

We were told the Constitution’s checks and balances would hold.

We were told no president would ever be allowed to exercise such powers without meaningful restraint.

They were wrong.

And we were wrong to trust power to restrain itself.

The lesson is the same one the founders learned from bitter experience: power granted in the name of necessity rarely remains confined to necessity.

Every emergency becomes a precedent.

Every precedent becomes a power.

Every power becomes permanent.

The founders also warned against standing armies and perpetual war.

Having lived under military occupation, they understood that governments organized around war inevitably become organized around power.

What they feared was not merely the presence of soldiers but the rise of a permanent warfare state—a government that uses conflict, fear and national security as justification for expanding its authority.

Today, those dangers extend beyond foreign battlefields. National Guard units are increasingly federalized and deployed domestically. Military tactics, equipment and personnel continue to flow into civilian law enforcement. The line separating the soldier from the police officer grows fainter with each passing crisis.

Look around.

The United States has spent much of the last quarter century engaged in military operations somewhere in the world. Wars are launched without formal declarations. Emergency powers become permanent. Defense budgets swell while domestic needs go unmet. Intelligence agencies operate with extraordinary secrecy. Technologies developed for foreign battlefields migrate into local police departments and domestic surveillance programs.

Today, even as the Trump Administration and its so-called War Department continue to pound the war drums, Americans are once again being told to trust government officials operating behind closed doors, often with little public debate and even less accountability.

The founders understood a simple truth: governments that prepare constantly for war eventually begin treating their own citizens as potential enemies.

That is the logic of empire.

Enemies abroad justify surveillance at home. War powers abroad justify police powers at home. National security becomes the excuse for secrecy, militarization, censorship, detention and control.

Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the rise of the surveillance state.

Long before shots were fired at Lexington and Concord, colonists were outraged by writs of assistance—general warrants that allowed British agents to search homes, businesses and personal property without meaningful justification.

Those abuses helped inspire the Fourth Amendment.

Today, government agents no longer need to kick down your door to invade your privacy.

Your cell phone tracks your movements. Your vehicle reports your location. Your purchases reveal your habits. Your social media activity exposes your associations. Your digital footprint creates a detailed record of your life.

Government agencies can access location data, financial records, license plate readers, facial recognition databases and vast stores of personal information, often with little transparency and even less oversight.

Meanwhile, Congress continues to renew and expand surveillance authorities while intelligence agencies deepen information-sharing arrangements with domestic and foreign partners. Americans are increasingly monitored not because they are suspected of wrongdoing, but because technology has made mass surveillance possible and government has found it useful.

The surveillance state has no borders. Nor does it have clear limits.

Government agencies increasingly rely on broad and elastic “extremist” classifications that often extend beyond violence or criminal conduct to encompass lawful speech, political dissent and ideological opposition.

What begins as a tool to identify dangerous actors inevitably expands into a mechanism for monitoring unpopular viewpoints. Information collected for one purpose is shared for another. Data gathered abroad finds its way home. Intelligence systems built to monitor foreign threats are repurposed to watch domestic populations.

King George’s agents needed boots and battering rams to search your home.

Today’s government can search your life without ever leaving its desk.

And then there is the matter of accountability—or rather, the lack of it.

The Declaration of Independence repeatedly condemned a government that had placed itself above the law.

That grievance remains painfully relevant.

Government officials who violate constitutional rights are frequently shielded from accountability by doctrines such as qualified immunity. Secret courts authorize secret programs. Bureaucrats operate behind layers of classification and administrative complexity. Government agencies routinely fail audits, lose records, misuse surveillance powers and exceed their authority, yet meaningful consequences remain rare.

Meanwhile, ordinary Americans face an entirely different standard.

When government officials make costly mistakes, taxpayers foot the bill.

When unconstitutional policies trigger lawsuits, taxpayers foot the bill.

When unlawful detentions result in settlements, taxpayers foot the bill.

When militarized raids, wrongful arrests, surveillance abuses and civil-rights violations generate years of litigation, taxpayers foot the bill.

Even now, Americans are being asked to absorb the financial costs of government misconduct on a staggering scale—from unlawful enforcement actions and unconstitutional executive orders to politically motivated spending schemes and settlements designed to shield those in power from scrutiny.

The public pays for the government’s mistakes while those responsible often walk away untouched. In some cases, public office itself has become a vehicle for private gain, with self-enrichment schemes, conflicts of interest and insider favoritism blurring the line between public service and personal profit.

The pattern is impossible to ignore.

Profits are privatized. Power is centralized. Accountability is deferred.

The bill is sent to the American people.

Whether it involves unlawful surveillance, unconstitutional arrests, retaliatory investigations, speech-based censorship, ICE raids that terrorize communities, warrantless tracking, civil asset forfeiture, the targeting of whistleblowers, journalists and activists, endless wars or political corruption, the pattern is the same: power protects itself.

The founders did not risk their lives because taxes were too high.

They risked their lives because government had become detached from the people, insulated from accountability and convinced that power justified itself.

Sound familiar?

The uncomfortable truth is that many of the abuses that sparked the American Revolution have returned, only this time they arrive wrapped in the language of national security, public safety, emergency management and administrative necessity.

The faces have changed. The technology has changed. The rhetoric has changed.

The danger remains the same.

Which brings us back to this strange anniversary year.

The 250th anniversary of American independence should have been an opportunity to renew our commitment to limited government, constitutional accountability and the principle that no one is above the law.

Instead, the lesson of 9/11 is being repeated in a different form.

Twenty-five years ago, fear became the pretext for permanent emergency.

Today, patriotism is becoming the backdrop for presidential spectacle, military pageantry and the celebration of the very concentration of power the American Revolution was fought to resist.

Much of the celebration has been transformed into a spectacle of power: military displays, patriotic pageantry, strongman politics and the elevation of political leaders into larger-than-life figures whose authority is expected to be admired rather than questioned.

Yet the founders did not launch a revolution so Americans could celebrate authoritarian power.

They launched a revolution to remind future generations that power is dangerous, liberty is fragile and no ruler should ever be elevated above the Constitution.

For 250 years, Americans have treated the Declaration of Independence as the nation’s birth certificate.

What we have failed to recognize is that the Declaration of Independence was also a warning: freedom is fragile, power is relentless, and no generation remains free simply because a previous generation fought for liberty.

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the most important question is not whether the nation survived. Nations survive. Empires survive. Governments survive.

The real question, as I make clear in Battlefield America: The War on the American People and its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, is whether the principles that inspired the American Revolution survived as well.

Thus, the question is not whether America survived 250 years.

The question is whether the principles of 1776 can survive the American police state.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 23:25

Trump Reports Over $1.4 Billion In Income From 2025 Crypto Earnings

Trump Reports Over $1.4 Billion In Income From 2025 Crypto Earnings

President Trump earned more than $1.4 billion from his family’s crypto-related ventures alone last year, according to a financial disclosure released Tuesday, including from his meme coin business and his family’s cryptocurrency firm.

The 927-page filing, his annual disclosure for 2025 with ‌the US Office of Government Ethics, disclosed that Trump made $636 million in royalties from CIC Digital, LLC, a company that issues $TRUMP, a crypto token that he launched three days before taking office for his second term. Almost all of the come came in the form of royalties from a license agreement with Celebration Coins. Trump’s meme coin reached its peak value of $74.24 within a day of launching. On Tuesday evening, its price was $1.67, down 98% since inception.

The president also reported almost $600 million in income from token sales by World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company backed by the president and his family, and around $65 million from equity sales in the firm that controls World Liberty Financial. Another $196 million in equity sales of Stablecoin Holdco LLC are also listed. A crypto firm and issuer of tokens, World Liberty Financial was launched during the 2024 presidential campaign. It was co-founded by the president, his sons Eric and Donald Jr. and Zack and Alex Witkoff, the sons of U.S. special envoy and longtime Trump friend Steve Witkoff.

World Liberty Financial’s ventures include USD1, a “stablecoin” pegged at $1 per coin that’s designed to serve as a store of value. It also sells another crypto product, $WLF tokens, and takes 75% in net revenue from those token sales, according to the company’s public reports.

The company drew scrutiny last year, after an Abu Dhabi government-owned wealth fund used the USD1 stablecoin to facilitate a multibillion-dollar investment in the massive crypto exchange Binance. The co-founder of Binance, Changpeng Zhao, received a pardon from Trump for financial crimes. The president has denied any connection between the pardon and the World Liberty Financial transaction, telling CBS News last year: “I don’t know who he is.”

In response to questions about the financial disclosure, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told CBS News “there are no conflicts of interest.”

“This is the same, tired narrative that Democrats have pushed against President Trump, his family, and his administration for a decade,” Kelly said. “President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public – which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media.”

The 927-page filing, released Tuesday by the US Office of Government Ethics, provides a view into his sprawling empire, including income from his hotels, golf resorts and cryptocurrency ventures. 

Trump’s crypto-related income vastly eclipsed his earnings from many of the real estate businesses that helped make him famous. Those included around $77 million in income from his Mar-a-Lago club, $122 million from his golf club in Doral, Florida, and upwards of $30 million apiece from golf clubs in Jupiter, Florida, Bedminster, New Jersey, and Turnberry, Scotland.

The filing offers a detailed accounting of the various other ways the president’s name generates money. An ethics official noted that Mr. Trump received a 45-day extension to file the report and “paid late filing fees related to transactions not previously reported” on earlier disclosures.

Trump, who’s worth an estimated $7.6 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, valued more than two dozen assets at more than $50 million, including Mar-a-Lago; his Turnberry, Scotland, golf resort; and his stake in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which owns his Truth Social platform.

The president reported $4.7 million in royalties from “Trump Watches,” along with payments from Trump-branded sneakers, fragrances and guitars. Trump Restaurants LLC, a New York-based entity wholly owned by one of the president’s holding companies, reported nearly $2.9 million in food and beverage sales, according to the filing.

And his books continued to pay out – including roughly $1.9 million from “Save America” and smaller sums from “The Art of the Deal,” “Letters to Trump,” “A MAGA Journey” and an edition of the Bible in collaboration with singer Lee Greenwood.

First lady Melania Trump’s ventures also appear. The filing lists more than $10.7 million in net proceeds from a license agreement tied to the film “Melania,” about $6 million from the sale of NFTs and other collectibles and additional proceeds from her memoir.

The president also listed several of his legal settlements with tech and media companies, including $16 million from a lawsuit against ABC, $16 million from CBS Broadcasting and CBS Interactive, $24.5 million from Meta, $22 million from YouTube and $8 million from X. Most of that money was paid to his future presidential library or the Trust for the National Mall, not to the president personally. 

As with last year’s financial disclosure, Trump listed several court judgments against him as liabilities, including a penalty in a civil fraud case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James and two multimillion-dollar judgements owed to E. Jean Carroll, who accused the president of sexual abuse and defamation. (Trump has denied those allegations.)

The civil fraud judgment was tossed out last year by a panel of appellate judges who found the requirement for him to pay nearly $527 million in fines plus interest was “excessive,” though they left non-financial penalties intact. The Supreme Court this week declined to hear Trump’s appeal of the jury verdict in the Carroll cases.

Officials disclose the values of their holdings in broad ranges with “over $50 million” the highest, which means that they can’t be used to calculate an individual’s net worth.

The Trump Organization has said that the president’s holdings are independently managed by third-party financial institutions who have control over all investment decisions, with trades executed through automated processes. Trump, his family members and his company play no role in making transactions, according to a spokeswoman.

Trump’s disclosure also showed that he has a new pledged-asset line with Charles Schwab Corp.’s banking business that totals more than $50 million. The line of credit has an interest rate of 3.9%, according to the filing. A spokesperson for the financial firm had no immediate comment.

Last but not least, the document also show Trump reported receiving 10 tickets to the soccer World Cup finals in July from FIFA head Gianni Infantino valued at $15,000, 10 tickets to the US Open tennis tournament from sponsor Rolex worth $25,000, as well as 10 tickets to Super Bowl LIX in New Orleans estimated at $50,000.

Vice President JD Vance also disclosed assets for him and his wife, Usha Vance, worth more than $7 million.

The full filing is below (pdf link)

Tyler Durden
Tue, 06/30/2026 – 23:06