56.8 F
Chicago
Sunday, November 8, 2026
Home Blog Page 378

US Fentanyl Crisis Eases But Remains Dominant

US Fentanyl Crisis Eases But Remains Dominant

According to the latest provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), U.S. drug overdose deaths have come down from the peaks of the past years while remaining at high levels.

Recent figures suggest a notable decline to around 70,000 annual fatalities in 2025, following a peak of nearly 110,000 in 2023.

Still, synthetic opioids, primarily fentanyl, continue to be the main driver of overdose mortality, involved in more than half of the U.S. cases and underscoring the scale and persistence of the crisis.

As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, the role of synthetic opioids has grown dramatically over the past decade… 

Infographic: Fentanyl Crisis Eases but Remains Dominant | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In early 2015, fentanyl and related substances were involved in just 12 percent of all drug overdose deaths. This share rose steadily in the following years, surpassing 50 percent by early 2020 and reaching around two-thirds of overdose deaths by 2021-2022, as the Covid-19 pandemic exacerbated the situation.

At its peak in 2023, synthetic opioids accounted for roughly 70 percent of all overdose fatalities in the country, highlighting how decisively fentanyl has overtaken other drugs, in part because its extreme potency makes it cost-effective to mix into other drugs, thereby increasing the risk of overdoses.

The underlying trend reflects both a sharp increase in deaths linked to synthetic opioids and a relative stabilization, or even decline, of fatalities involving other substances. 

Deaths involving fentanyl surged from fewer than 6,000 per month in early 2015 to more than 75,000 annually by 2023 (12-month rolling totals), while deaths linked to other drugs remained broadly flat or declined slightly over the same period.

However, the latest provisional CDC data point to a potential turning point.

Throughout 2024, overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids declined from around 72,700 in January to below 50,000 by December (rolling totals), bringing their share of total overdose deaths down to about 60 percent.

While this marks a notable improvement, fentanyl remains at the center of the U.S. overdose epidemic.

Public health experts attribute the recent decline to a combination of factors, including expanded access to naloxone (a medication used to reverse opioid overdoses), increased public awareness, intensified prevention efforts and shifts in drug supply.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 23:00

The 4 Percent Rule Is Showing Its Age: Smarter Withdrawal Strategies For 2026

The 4 Percent Rule Is Showing Its Age: Smarter Withdrawal Strategies For 2026

Authored by Peter Daisyme via Due,

The 4 percent rule has guided retirement planning for three decades. The idea is simple: withdraw 4 percent of your savings in year one, adjust that dollar amount for inflation each year after, and your money should last about 30 years. It is a useful starting point and a great mental shortcut. But the person who created it has spent recent years telling people it is far more flexible – and often more generous – than the rigid version most savers cling to.

Experts say the best retirement withdrawal strategy adjusts to changing conditions. oneinchpunch/shutterstock

Where The 4 Percent Rule Came From

Financial planner William Bengen introduced the rule in 1994 after crunching decades of historical market data. He wanted to find the highest withdrawal rate that would have survived even the worst market conditions of the 20th century, including the Great Depression and the brutal 1970s. The answer he landed on was about 4 percent, and the figure stuck so firmly that it became gospel.

The crucial detail that gets lost is what “survived the worst case” actually means. Bengen was not describing the typical retirement – he was describing the single most unfortunate starting year in history. For the vast majority of retirees, a portfolio drawn down at 4 percent not only lasted; it grew substantially.

What The 4 Percent Rule Gets Right – And Wrong

The rule’s strength lies in its simplicity and conservatism. It forces you to think in terms of a sustainable withdrawal rate rather than a lump sum, and it builds in a margin of safety. The weakness is that the same conservatism can leave you underspending for decades and dying with a fortune you never enjoyed.

“The 4 percent rule – or the newer version of the 4.7 percent rule – is the worst-case scenario. It’s really designed for only the most conservative person to use in retirement planning.”

That is Bengen himself, quoted by Bankrate. With broader diversification across asset classes, he has argued that retirees may be able to start with withdrawal rates closer to 4.7 percent in some circumstances. In other words, the famous 4 percent figure is better viewed as a conservative baseline than a hard spending limit.

Why 2026 Calls For A Flexible Approach

A fixed percentage ignores what is actually happening around you. Markets rise and fall, and inflation eats into every dollar you pull out. Bengen has called inflation retirees’ “greatest enemy” for exactly this reason – a few bad inflation years early in retirement can do lasting damage to a portfolio. Morningstar’s ongoing research has landed on a more cautious starting figure in some years, underscoring that there is no single magic number that works in every environment.

The real risk hiding behind the 4 percent rule is called sequence-of-returns risk. If the market drops sharply in your first few years of retirement while you are also withdrawing, you sell assets at depressed prices, and your portfolio may never fully recover. The same average return delivered in a different order can produce wildly different outcomes. That is why when you retire and how you adjust matter as much as the percentage you choose.

A Real-World Look At Sequence Risk

To see why flexibility matters so much, picture two retirees who both start with $1 million and both average the same 7 percent return over time. The only difference is the order of those returns. The first retiree hits a string of strong market years right after retiring; the second runs into a steep downturn in years one and two. Even though their average returns are identical over the long run, the second retiree is withdrawing money from a shrinking portfolio at the worst possible moment, locking in losses they can never fully recover. Years later, the first retiree may have more money than they started with, while the second is watching their balance dwindle.

That is sequence-of-returns risk in plain terms, and it is the best argument against rigidly withdrawing a fixed inflation-adjusted amount no matter what. A retiree willing to trim spending modestly during the early bad years dramatically improves their odds of never running out.

Three Withdrawal Strategies Worth Considering

Instead of locking yourself into one rate, build in flexibility. These approaches all reduce the odds of running dry while letting you spend more when conditions allow:

  • Guardrails: Start near 5 percent, then trim spending in down years and give yourself a raise after strong ones.
  • The bucket approach: Keep one to two years of expenses in cash so you never sell investments during a downturn.
  • Dynamic spending: Tie withdrawals to portfolio performance rather than a rigid inflation adjustment, so your spending breathes with your balance.

Each acknowledges a simple truth: real retirees do not spend the exact same inflation-adjusted amount every year for 30 years. They flex, and a strategy that flexes with them is more realistic and usually more efficient.

How To Set Your Own Number

Your personal safe rate depends on several factors the rule of thumb ignores:

  • Your retirement age and realistic life expectancy.
  • How much of your spending is covered by guaranteed income, such as Social Security or a pension?
  • Your asset mix and your tolerance for spending cuts in a bad year.
  • Whether leaving a large inheritance is a goal or a non-issue.

A 70-year-old with a pension and modest spending can safely withdraw far more than 4 percent. A 55-year-old early retiree with no other income should probably start at a lower level. The number is personal, which is exactly why a one-size-fits-all rule eventually breaks down. The healthiest approach is an annual check-in where you review your balance, spending, and remaining time horizon, and then adjust. Early in retirement, when sequence risk is highest, these reviews matter most.

Don’t Forget Taxes In Your Withdrawal Plan

Your withdrawal rate is only half the equation; the order in which you tap your accounts matters too. Pulling money tax-efficiently – generally from taxable accounts first, then tax-deferred accounts like a traditional 401(k), and finally Roth accounts – can stretch your savings meaningfully further than withdrawing haphazardly. Required minimum distributions, the taxation of Social Security, and Medicare premium thresholds all interact with how much you withdraw and from where. A retiree who coordinates withdrawals with taxes can often support a higher effective spending rate than one who ignores them, simply by keeping more money out of the government’s hands. It is one more reason the rigid 4 percent rule is just a starting point rather than a complete plan.

The Bottom Line

Treat the 4 percent rule as a floor for planning, not a ceiling for spending. Run your own numbers, account for your guaranteed income and time horizon, stay flexible enough to adjust in volatile years, and revisit the plan annually. Done right, you avoid both nightmares: running out of money too soon and reaching the end of a long life having denied yourself a retirement you could easily have afforded. If you want a deeper framework, our retirement planning guide can help you pressure-test your assumptions before you stop working.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 22:35

FBI Mole Wore Wire Inside Newsom’s Inner Circle: Lawyer

FBI Mole Wore Wire Inside Newsom’s Inner Circle: Lawyer

A mole working for the Biden FBI was secretly recording Gavin Newsom’s inner circle before the agency expanded its corruption probe into the California governor and his wife, according to a bombshell report by the NY Post. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom, Alexis Podesta

Democrat insider Alexis Podesta, a 45-year-old Sacramento consultant and Newsom appointee – no known relation to John Podesta – secretly taped conversations for the FBI as early as June 2024, while Joe Biden was still in the White House, according to McGregor Scott, the former US attorney now representing Dana Williamson. Williamson, 53, ran Newsom’s office as chief of staff until late 2024; in May she pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, filing a false tax return, and lying to federal agents.

Federal prosecutors accused Williamson and others of orchestrating a scheme to siphon roughly $225,000 from a dormant campaign account which belonged to former HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra -disguising the payments as legitimate consulting fees while routing the money to benefit Becerra’s former chief of staff, Sean McCluskie. According to Podesta’s attorney, she was placed in charge of overseeing the account in question – but did not know the payments were improper.

Becerra is now the Democratic nominee to succeed Newsom as governor. 

“Alexis wore a wire, and Dana did not,” said Williamson’s lawyer and former US attorney for the Eastern District of California, McGregor Scott. 

“A lot of people received letters essentially informing us that there were certain periods of time where the FBI was given access to follow phone calls,” said assemblymember Josh Hoover (R-Folsom), who said he was among those who received a letter even though he had never spoken with either Podesta or Williamson. 

“I don’t know how these investigations work, but it sounds like they cast a pretty broad net across the Capitol community to see what they could find.” 

A separate source with knowledge of the matter said they knew of four Sacramento insiders who also received FBI notifications confirming they had been recorded.

One recipient told the source: “Dude, I got this f—ing letter. I never even met with Dana Williamson!”

“Their curiosity was that they never even met with Dana Williamson, so they were wondering what this is all about,” the source said.

“And now you have the answer.” -NY Post

News of the wire comes just over two weeks after Newsom claimed that the Trump administration is punishing him because he may run for president in 2028. 

“They’re demanding records, they’re abusing the grand jury process, digging through years and years of random documents. Donald Trump isn’t just coming after me because of my mean tweets, he’s coming after me because I’m considering running for president, because he hates that I’ve consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit,” Newsom said, before sending a mass email asking for political donations. 

Sources close to the investigation, however, told The Post that the feds have spent the past year digging into Newsom, his staff, and his wife’s taxes after whistleblowers reportedly dropped the dime that led to the probe. Williamson’s attorney told the outlet that his client declined to cooperate because she didn’t have anything on Newsom. 

Podesta – a former staffer for the late Dianne Feinstein, is a longtime Democratic power broker who remains on California’s State Compensation Insurance Fund board – to which Newsom appointed her in January 2020. She also held senior positions in Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration, and served as secretary of the California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. While she hasn’t been charged with a crime, her attorney identified her as an uncharged co-conspirator in the Williamson indictment.

Of note, Podesta is still getting paid $60,797 by the state while cooperating with the FBI, while she sits on the Insurance Fund Board. 

Campaign finance records show Becerra’s committee making $10,000 monthly payments to ‘Podesta Company’ during 2023 and 2024. During this period, Williamson – while Newsom’s CoS – shared confidential info with Podesta regarding a corporate client that has now been identified as Activision Blizzard.

Williamson’s plea agreement states that she was captured in a June 2024 wiretap strategizing with the co-conspirator about how to respond to a Public Records Act request involving the state’s litigation against the company. Williamson and Podesta exchanged text messages on the issue, according to court records. Podesta has not publicly commented on the matter. -NY Post

Hoover, the Republican assemblymember, told The Post: “All of this stuff just raises so many questions … “What is going on in this administration? What types of conversations are being had? I think the entire case should be really concerning for the general public. It’s really raising a lot of mistrust.”

“I think it underlines how problematic this current administration is. [Newsom] is someone who wants to run for president of the United States. It’s really disappointing to see that this is the level of our politics.”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 22:16

US Navy Tests 3D-Printed Composite Patches To Speed Up F/A-18 Fighter Jet Repairs

US Navy Tests 3D-Printed Composite Patches To Speed Up F/A-18 Fighter Jet Repairs

Authored by Mrigakshi Dixit via Interesting Engineering,

The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) and Fleet Readiness Center Southwest (FRCSW) have co-developed a 3D-printed composite repair method designed to reduce F/A-18 Super Hornet maintenance times by approximately 50 percent.

An F/A-18 Super Hornet pilot prepares for flight at Fleet Readiness Center Southwest in San Diego.NAWCAD Visual Information

When an F/A-18 fighter jet gets damaged at a remote base, fixing its advanced composite parts typically takes weeks. The Navy had to wait for specialized technicians to arrive or ship massive parts across the globe to repair depots in the US, keeping combat jets grounded.

Also, the Navy faces a drop in critical combat readiness as it struggles to keep up with fighter jet repairs.

The new method could solve this challenge. The engineers have designed a high-performance, 3D-printed composite patches that can be manufactured and applied directly onto grounded aircraft. Rather than waiting weeks for a shipping container, sailors at forward bases can soon hit print.

“Our goal is to put capability directly into the hands of the Fleet,” said NAWCAD Commander Rear Adm. Todd Evans. “By simplifying a complex repair so it can be done forward, our engineers would get aircraft back in the fight faster – it’s a smart solution that makes our squadrons more self-sufficient and directly improves operational readiness.”

Print, Patch, Fly

The strategy’s real advantage is that it leverages infrastructure the Navy already owns. As per the official release, the service has deployed industrial 3D printers to 22 maintenance sites around the world. The process strips away geographic vulnerability.

Sailors can complete repairs on-site instead of waiting for replacement parts to be shipped from repair depots in the United States by manufacturing the necessary patches where the aircraft are deployed.

Transitioning 3D printing from a novelty to a flight-ready combat repair requires extreme precision. To guarantee safety, the joint engineering team developed extensive application procedures and specialized quality checks. The patches are designed to withstand the extreme aerodynamic forces and thermal environments typical of supersonic fighter operations.

The technology has already passed strict laboratory tests.

Flight Testing Expected Soon

In the summer, it faces the ultimate test: a live flight demonstration on an operational Super Hornet. This is the U.S. Navy’s primary carrier-based, twin-engine fighter jet. It handles everything from air-to-air combat to precision bombing runs.

Testing the 3D-printed patch on an operational jet, instead of a stripped-down laboratory model, will be a huge milestone. It will ultimately showcased whether or not the Navy is confident enough to let a pilot fly a frontline combat jet at high speeds with a 3D-printed part attached to it.

Reportedly, this deployment of the new patch method aligns with a major structural shift for the U.S. Marine Corps, which plans to deactivate all remaining Hornet squadrons by 2030. The service is phasing out the maintenance specialties associated with the aging fighter jet as it transitions entirely to a tactical fleet of fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II aircraft.

Nevertheless, if the method gets widely adopted, the patch method will fundamentally alter how naval aviation views sustainment. The Navy will be able to respond to the demands of modern combat with much greater speed and agility.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:45

America’s $31 Trillion Economy By State

America’s $31 Trillion Economy By State

As the United States approaches its 250th anniversary in 2026, its economy has grown to nearly $31 trillion, making it the world’s largest by a wide margin.

Using the latest estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), this visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Gabriel Cohen, ranks every state by nominal GDP in 2025, showing how each contributes to national output.

California: The Economic Engine of America

If California were an independent country, it would have the world’s fourth-largest economy, behind only the U.S., China, and Germany, and ahead of all other nations. It is currently the world’s largest subnational economy.

This data table lists U.S. states by their 2025 nominal GDP.

Rank State Nominal GDP in 2025 (billions $) Share of U.S. GDP (%)
1 California 4,251 13.8
2 Texas 2,904 9.4
3 New York 2,468 8.0
4 Florida 1,835 6.0
5 Illinois 1,202 3.9
6 Pennsylvania 1,056 3.4
7 Ohio 967 3.1
8 Georgia 925 3.0
9 Washington 895 2.9
10 North Carolina 894 2.9
11 New Jersey 887 2.9
12 Massachusetts 820 2.7
13 Virginia 798 2.6
14 Michigan 730 2.4
15 Arizona 598 1.9
16 Tennessee 590 1.9
17 Colorado 584 1.9
18 Maryland 568 1.8
19 Indiana 545 1.8
20 Minnesota 531 1.7
21 Wisconsin 473 1.5
22 Missouri 468 1.5
23 South Carolina 379 1.2
24 Connecticut 376 1.2
25 Oregon 343 1.1
26 Alabama 341 1.1
27 Louisiana 340 1.1
28 Utah 316 1.0
29 Kentucky 307 1.0
30 Nevada 281 0.9
31 Iowa 277 0.9
32 Oklahoma 274 0.9
33 Kansas 241 0.8
34 Arkansas 198 0.6
35 Nebraska 198 0.6
36 District of Columbia 193 0.6
37 Mississippi 165 0.5
38 New Mexico 153 0.5
39 Idaho 136 0.4
40 New Hampshire 126 0.4
41 Hawaii 125 0.4
42 Delaware 117 0.4
43 West Virginia 109 0.4
44 Maine 103 0.3
45 Rhode Island 84 0.3
46 Montana 82 0.3
47 North Dakota 82 0.3
48 South Dakota 81 0.3
49 Alaska 75 0.2
50 Wyoming 53 0.2
51 Vermont 48 0.2
– 🇺🇸 U.S. 30,762 100.0

California is a powerful, diversified economy in which different sectors dominate different areas. Los Angeles, for example, is a major media hub, while San Francisco and the Bay Area’s Silicon Valley remain a global center for many of the world’s most valuable tech firms.

The Central Valley, meanwhile, serves as one of the most productive agricultural areas in the world, with high output in dairy products, wine, nuts, fruits, and vegetables.

Beyond these well-known sectors, the Golden State is also a major player in energy, particularly solar power, as well as a key logistics hub owing to the massive ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.

The Trillion-Dollar Club

Beyond California, five other states have a GDP exceeding a trillion dollars as of 2025: Texas ($2.9 trillion), New York ($2.5 trillion), Florida ($1.8 trillion), Illinois ($1.2 trillion), and Pennsylvania ($1.1 trillion).

Some of these state economies, like Illinois and New York, are highly concentrated in one major city, such as Chicago or New York City. Others, like Florida and Texas, are more diffuse. Four Texan cities, for example, number among the country’s 10 most populous as of 2025.

In line with its diversified economy, Texas is a major agricultural, defense, and energy player. The Lone Star State also has more Fortune 500 companies than any other state.

The Diversified U.S. Economy

While technology and entertainment drive California, Texas combines energy, manufacturing, agriculture, and defense.

Elsewhere, states specialize in industries ranging from finance and pharmaceuticals to tourism and farming. This geographic diversity helps make the U.S. economy more resilient, as slowdowns in one industry or region can be offset by strength in others.

The Great Plains, for example, are major producers of agricultural goods like soy and corn, as seen in the Iowan ($277 billion) and Nebraskan ($198 billion) economies. These states are particularly sensitive to droughts or trade disputes with major agricultural markets like China or Mexico.

Meanwhile, other states depend more on tourism, particularly in major cities. Nevada’s $281-billion economy, for example, is heavily concentrated in Las Vegas, making the state vulnerable to drops in tourist numbers.

Curious how each U.S. state ranks in terms of its business reputation? Check out Ranking the Best State Economies in 2024 on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:20

‘Something Has Gone Completely Wrong’: Palantir’s Alex Karp Goes Ballistic On OpenAI, Anthropic

‘Something Has Gone Completely Wrong’: Palantir’s Alex Karp Goes Ballistic On OpenAI, Anthropic

On Wednesday, Palantir CEO Alex Karp delivered a blistering critique of frontier AI labs, accusing them of having an “effing insane” business model that leaves enterprises paying escalating token costs for limited value while risking their proprietary data and intellectual property. He said that top AI labs such as Anthropic and OpenAI were misleading corporate partners – “overselling” the risks of AI while at the same time offering their most powerful models to companies and governments worldwide. 

When CNBC host Becky Quick said “You sound pretty angry,” Karp replied: “This is the voice of American business that is being channeled through me,” he told CNBC, joking later that he might “get kicked out of the room.”

Karp’s comments come amid a “revolt” against U.S. AI labs – driven by a combination of high costs, questionable ROI, and increasing regulatory headwinds which have driven some major U.S. companies to cheaper Chinese alternatives, creating multiple pressure points for OpenAI, Anthropic, and others.

“Something Has Gone Completely Wrong”

Karp slammed the token model used by Anthropic and OpenAI – saying “I’m not throwing shade at them, but something has gone completely wrong,” he said. “The basic view among enterprises in this country is I’m going to chillax and waste my time with tokens.”

He argued that that labs were overselling risks while simultaneously pushing powerful models, and that companies were effectively paying a “wealth tax” that transferred their “alpha” (competitive advantage) to third parties. On national security, he warned: “Are we really going to outsource the battlefield of this country to the consensus view in Silicon Valley? That is effing insane.”

The remarks aligned with a 9-point “AI sovereignty” manifesto Palantir posted on X the day before, which criticized “tokenmaxxing” for incentivizing disposable scripts over robust systems and urged institutions to retain control over their data, model weights, and competitive edge.

Via X: 

Our thoughts on the importance of AI sovereignty.

1. Your AI sovereignty dictates your institution’s future. Sovereignty is the precondition for choice. Relinquishing sovereignty transfers the future choices of your institution to others, who are likely to exploit it for their gain and your loss.

2. Data retention is your treasure. Transfer it at your own peril. Your ability to win is dictated by your ability to recognize and use your unique edges, and you keep winning by compounding the underlying data to generate new insights. Transferring that data hands over access to your pre-existing winning plays and yields the means of production for new ones.

3. Tokenmaxxing hijacks your value orientation and decreases your institutional fortitude and intelligence. The pursuit of high token usage incentivizes disposable scripts over robust software — with the addictive feeling of false progress. There is a reason why those selling tokens refuse to charge based on value.

4. Controlling your weights is controlling your fate. Weights are the distilled form of hard-won, accumulated institutional knowledge. If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.

5. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and alpha. The architecture that maximally preserves sovereignty is one that enables institutions to own their tribal knowledge, and to compound it as alpha.

6. Politicizing the technical issues involving sovereignty is what your adversary wants. Techno-politicization is the wellspring of false sovereignty. Techno-politicization drives decisions that seem to reduce dependency, but ultimately limit agency — especially on the battlefield in the West.

7. Real expertise is existential. Allowing politics or favoritism to determine your technical decisions rewards whoever is best at politics, not whoever is right. Listen to those closest to the problems, not those speaking most compellingly about them.

8. Learn from institutions that are winning or that have consistently delivered. Institutions facing existential threats do not have the luxury of making technical decisions based on political preferences.

9. Only listen to institutions, countries, and people who have a proven record of being right. A track record of correctness is the best and only signal for future correctness. Judging something as right or wrong based on who you like is exceedingly misguided.

“Controlling your weights is controlling your fate,” the manifesto stated. “If you let others control your weights, you are allowing them to migrate the alpha of your business to theirs.”

Karp noted Palantir’s expanded Nvidia partnership, which enables custom, sovereign AI deployments where customers retain control over compute, models, data, and weights – a direct counter to the metered frontier API model.

Watch CNBC’s full interview with Palantir CEO Alex Karp

The Cost-Driven Shift To Chinese Models

As we’ve been noting, high token prices and mixed returns have prompted several U.S. companies to adopt or explore Chinese open-weight models:

  • Microsoft is considering a Microsoft-hosted, fine-tuned version of China’s DeepSeek V4 (or another open-source model) as a lower-cost engine for its Copilot Cowork agentic tool, as it moves toward usage-based pricing.
  • Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong revealed the company cut internal AI spending by nearly 50% by defaulting engineers to Chinese open-weight models (Zhipu AI’s GLM 5.2 and Moonshot AI’s Kimi series) via an internal gateway, while maintaining high usage.
  • Cursor, a fast-growing AI coding startup, built its Composer 2 model on top of Moonshot AI’s Kimi K2.5 (backed by Alibaba).

Data from OpenRouter shows Chinese models capturing a rapidly growing share of global token consumption – in some periods exceeding 60% among top models – as enterprises seek cost relief without fully sacrificing capability.

Karp had warned against underestimating China’s progress; these examples illustrate the trend in real time.

Watch the entire interview below:

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 21:15

Jill Biden’s Memoir Sales Appear To Be Manipulated By Bulk Sales

Jill Biden’s Memoir Sales Appear To Be Manipulated By Bulk Sales

Former First Lady Jill Biden’s memoir, View from the East Wing, debuted at No. 1 on the New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction bestseller list on June 21. But how much of its sales were genuine sales from interested readers is unclear.

Former First Lady Dr. Jill Biden speaks with journalist Paola Ramos (L) at the Sixth and I temple and venue on June 3, 2026 in the Chinatown neighborhood of Washington, DC. while promoting her new book, “View from the East Wing: A Memoir”.Tom Brenner—Getty Images

In fact, when the book appeared on the bestsellers list, it came bearing a dagger (†) symbol, the small mark the Times attaches when retailers report bulk purchases mixed in with regular sales. A book doesn’t earn that symbol by accident. It earns it because the paper suspects something other than organic demand is propping up the number.

Whatever propped it up didn’t hold.

The book slid to No. 3 the following week, then vanished from the list entirely. Circana BookScan, the retail data source most of the publishing industry actually trusts, tells an even blunter story: the memoir dropped from No. 2 to No. 5 to No. 16 on its hardcover nonfiction chart across successive weeks. By the week ending June 20, it had moved just 3,221 print copies, bringing its total U.S. print sales to 29,539. For a book marketed as a cultural event timed to a midterm cycle Democrats are already sweating over, those numbers look thin.

Statistician Nate Silver, the founder of FiveThirtyEight, noticed the pattern immediately.

However, not everyone in publishing sees a scandal. Lauren Cobello, founder and CEO of Leverage with Media PR, a firm that specializes in launching bestselling books, offered a more forgiving read. “I don’t think there is anything sinister about it,” Cobello said. “I think it’s a strategy, a smart strategy for how people are engaging their network so that they can get more books in the hands of their readers.” Cobello explained that bulk orders frequently come from bookstores hosting author appearances or conferences, where hundreds of copies get purchased ahead of an event, and that such sales stay legitimate even when the Times flags them.

She extended Jill Biden the same benefit of the doubt. “She probably had bulk purchases, but because she’s on a book tour, that would make sense,” Cobello said. “The bulk purchases are linked to her book tour.” Cobello also pushed back on the idea that the book cratered outright, noting it kept a spot on the USA Today bestseller list after exiting the Times rankings. “It wasn’t a complete flop,” she said.

However, plenty of bestselling authors go on book tours without their books being flagged by the New York Times for bulk sales, suggesting Jill Biden’s book relied on bulk purchases to a degree that stood out.

The paper relies on a proprietary formula rather than raw sales totals, which is exactly the kind of opacity that invites suspicion when a book behaves this strangely. A Times spokesperson told The New York Post that “when The Times has reason to believe that sales of a book include a mix of organic and bulk sales, the book’s best-seller ranking is accompanied by a dagger.”

In other words, the paper knew something looked off and slapped a warning label on it rather than fixing the ranking itself.

Bulk orders can hijack a bestseller list that’s supposed to measure genuine reader appetite rather than the buying power of whoever wants a title to look popular. When one buyer scoops up hundreds or thousands of copies in a single transaction, that stack of books doesn’t reflect individual readers choosing to spend their own money. It reflects one entity writing one check, then distributing the copies elsewhere, often to people who might not have purchased the book otherwise.

Bestseller ranking gives a book cachet and credibility, generating press coverage, media bookings, and momentum that might never have materialized organically. While Jill Biden arguably didn’t need such publicity to get media attention, a legitimate lack of interest in the book would have been humiliating for the Biden brand.

There is nothing illegal about this practice, and companies do it for employee gifts, and campaigns do it for rallies. In fact, politicians’ gaming book sales is nothing new. Forbes reported in 2021 that at least six senators, including Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), appeared to use campaign donor money to buy their own books in bulk.

Biden’s publisher, Gallery Books, for its part, is sticking to the victory-lap script. “Gallery is thrilled with our publication of Jill Biden’s memoir ‘View from the East Wing,’ which has spent two weeks on the New York Times bestseller list,” a spokesperson told The Post, adding that “sales have been driven across retailers with a launch that included national media coverage and in-conversation events at venues partnered with independent bookstores.”

It is not known how much of an advance Jill Biden received for the memoir. Joe Biden reportedly received $10 million for his presidential memoir, which still lacks a release date.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 19:40

Alive And Kicking: News Of Woke’s Death Is Greatly Exaggerated

Alive And Kicking: News Of Woke’s Death Is Greatly Exaggerated

Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

Just a few years ago, wearing a sombrero on Halloween could get you banished from polite society for the social crime of “cultural appropriation.” Nutrition experts argued that preventing obesity was a form of racialized “fatphobia,” even as scientific names of songbirds were purged in a moral campaign presumably aimed at white supremacy. Meanwhile, a slew of studies and papers and articles argued that punctuality, excellence, and other forms of professionalism are “the systemic, institutionalized centering of whiteness.”

Today, as universities are dismantling their DEI bureaucracies, corporations are scaling back antiracism training, and academic trigger warnings and diversity pledges have become punch lines rather than cudgels, it is tempting to believe that the excesses of the woke movement have not just peaked but are a thing of the past, a passing fever dream of a peculiar era.

Such thinking, however, underestimates the power and persistence of “wokeness,” which was never a spontaneous outburst of moral righteousness born of COVID lockdowns and rage over George Floyd’s death, but a philosophy and a worldview that were decades in the making.

The success of candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America in recent congressional primaries in New York and mayoral races in Los Angeles and the District of Columbia underscores the enduring appeal of a leftist moral framework that casts American society as a Machiavellian struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed.

Although the DSA’s ascendancy in Democratic Party politics is a relatively new phenomenon, RCI’s analysis of high-profile issues that have defined the movement in recent years – from slavery reparations and polyamory to transgender advocacy and anti-colonialism – reveals that this dogma is still percolating through the culture, with some new outbreak almost every week. These deeper currents indicate that the DSA is not a driver but a reflection of wokeness – a worldview that continues to make advances and succeeds at the ballot box.

Major League Baseball’s official condemnation this month of San Francisco Giants players who wore caps with Bible quotes on Pride Night is one example of enforcing ideological conformity that harkens back to the Great Awokening of 2020. A recent newspaper headline, “Minneapolis City Hall dances into Pride Month with a drag show,” is further evidence of woke’s staying power.

Cultural Paradigm

In some ways, the social justice activists and politicians who envisioned diversity, equity, and inclusion as the pillars of American society have moved on to flirting with the moral imperative of micro-looting, lionizing Luigi Mangione for murdering a healthcare company executive, and celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk.

However one understands wokeness, it is not a mere hodgepodge of slogans and sporadic Twitter mobs. It is, instead, a cultural paradigm shared by millions of people in the West who espouse the inherent moral supremacy of the underdog and doubt the moral legitimacy of their own societies. These ideas have been honed in volumes of academic scholarship and backed by nonprofit funding over the past half-century, and they are increasingly codified into law and policy (see accompanying sidebar article).

“People have the idea that it’s a fad. They don’t understand the antecedents and the roots,” said Jason Hill, a philosophy professor at DePaul University who specializes in political philosophy and moral psychology.

“The moral grammar of the movements we call wokeness comes out of political liberalism,” Hill said. “Liberalism is ultimately a perfectionist and utopian project. It’s a never-ending project.”

Liberalism assumed its modern form in the 1960s, Hill said, when liberals abandoned the ideal of individual rights for group rights, in response to persistent Jim Crow-era discrimination. This shift led to a commitment to “radical egalitarianism,” in which discrimination and injustice are measured not by individual bigotry but by unequal group outcomes, and “the state has a responsibility to rectify those disparities.” Supporters refer to this commitment in a variety of ways – leveling the playing field, positive discrimination, or dismantling structures of oppression.

“Gestating Parents”

The critique of racism actually intensified after American society committed to fighting it – progressive scholars have described the scourge as “systemic racism” and “racism without racists” – expanding into a broader assault on other institutions and social norms, such as colorblindness, binary gender, colonialism, capitalism and other supposed legacies of European culture.

John McWhorter, a Columbia University linguist and longtime social commentator on race, said on a podcast this month that “the era of a particularly abusive kind of wokeness” – where opinions and speech were policed by the “excommunicator” and the “defenstrator” – has peaked in academia and in the arts. McWhorter said this militancy is “applied to different subjects” now – such as the Israel-Palestine debate, and in transgender advocacy.

“It’s obvious that the leaders of the trans movement, especially since ’20, have taken on that prosecutorial, anti-reasoning attitude,” McWhorter said. “And I hate to say that a lot of them are still doing it, and they’re modeling that on what they hoped would work in 2020 and 2021.”

The continuing wave of social justice consciousness-raising will sound familiar to anyone who has been following the issue. State governments in states controlled by Democrats remain committed to establishing slavery reparations programs. The city of New York has issued a 375-page equity plan that sounds as if it were written in 2020 by Ibram X. Kendi – the bestselling author who argued that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” And academic conferences by groups like the Modern Language Association and the American Academy of Religion continue to indulge in agitprop chic, featuring such topics as “Unpacking White Dominance” and “Structural Violence and Gendered Resistance.”

In the realm of gender politics, the normalization of polyamory is making inroads in municipal governments and in progressive churches. New York State this month replaced the words “mother” and “father” in the state’s family law with “gestating parent” and a “non-gestating parent.” Biological males who say they are girls continue winning trophies in girls’ high school sports. And a federal court recently ruled that a biological male with fully intact male genitalia who identifies as a woman must be granted access to an all-women’s nude spa (see sidebar).

Even the Daughters of the American Revolution has been swept up in the rapid social changes. The patriotic heritage group has voted to continue granting membership to transgender daughters who were born as sons.

Core Beliefs

The persistence and strength of this activism is underscored by the fact that it is happening as the Trump administration, Republican-controlled states, and conservative legal advocates are doing everything they can to stop these ideas from spreading. President Trump has threatened to withhold billions of dollars of federal funding to institutions that don’t comply with his demands to remove DEI, antisemitism, and other social justice activism from the curriculum. The U.S. Justice Department is investigating the nation’s leading medical schools for allegedly giving black applicants racial preferences over whites and Asians. Conservative states and a number of private universities have resumed using standardized tests in college admissions. Alabama and Texas have essentially put the state university systems in receivership in a bid to stop professors from teaching Critical Race Theory and Queer Theory to undergraduates.

But not all is as it seems. Some colleges that use standardized testing have different cutoffs for Asians, whites, and African Americans, based on proxies such as school district or other “holistic” indicators. Universities have slashed DEI programs, but subsequently a number of them were forced to fire diversity officers who were caught on camera bragging that their campus is still fully committed to DEI, and university officials have merely rebranded, not eliminated, race-based and queer-advocacy programs.

The core philosophical premise of wokeness is that social structures and cultural norms privilege some groups and harm or oppress others, creating power asymmetries and inequitable outcomes. Specific to the United States and Europe, males, heterosexuals, whites, and Christians continue to hoard power, privilege, and resources, benefitting from unfair advantage. The way to address this unjust dominance is through redistribution – by affirmative action, by diversity programs, by inclusive language, and by education that emphasizes the imperceptible workings of privilege and power – in order to equalize group outcomes. The criteria expand over time for what counts as harm and oppression, so that even challenging progressive beliefs or questioning black and queer peoples’ “lived experience” becomes an offense against the moral order. Meanwhile, the number of victimized identity groups multiplies, creating an endless mission creep that inevitably leads to culture wars and political conflicts.

Reparations for African Americans and descendants of slavery are one of the original progressive social justice commitments. For decades, it was a pipe dream of black activists, but in recent years, it has been taken seriously by policymakers. At least five states and more than a dozen cities have created task forces or commissions to study slavery reparations, according to the Associated Press, and there have been more than 460 reparations initiatives in this country, from commemorations to restitution. This year, Maryland became the latest state to vote in favor of studying slavery reparations for African Americans, establishing a 23-member reparations commission to formulate an apology, assess collective responsibility, and calculate monetary compensation. Last fall, California became the first state to create a Slavery Descendants Bureau to certify black beneficiaries who will receive reparations in “recognition and healing for the savagery of forced human slavery in the United States.” Internationally, the United Nations General Assembly recently passed a reparations resolution declaring the European enslavement of Africans as the “gravest crime against humanity.”

Racial equity advocates are keeping a low profile to evade unwanted attention from the Trump administration. One can only assume that these activists have not abandoned their goals, but are merely biding their time. However, they have not completely exited the public stage, as evidenced by an ambitious equity plan issued by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s Office of Equity & Racial Justice. Among the plan’s statements: “New York’s history has been one of colonization, exploitation, and racial oppression.” The 375-page document lauds Black Lives Matter, honors George Floyd, celebrates “intersectionality,” and describes racism as a “public health crisis.” Citing “grave injustices,” “atrocities,” “other forms of violence” committed against “Black, Indigenous, Latinx, Asian, Pacific Islander, Middle Eastern, and other People of Color, women, religious minorities, immigrants, people who are LGBTQ+, and people with disabilities” over the centuries, the plan declares: “Because racism is a race-explicit system, anti-racism requires race-explicit strategies.”

Land Acknowledgements

Another front in the progressive playbook is the recognition of reparations for indigenous tribes that were displaced by European settlers. The wish list for this movement runs the gamut from reciting “land acknowledgments” at public gatherings to the Land Back movement’s pursuit of sovereignty over ancestral lands.

The movement’s ethos is captured in the science journal Nature, a once-prestigious and now highly politicized publication in print since 1869, which ran a piece last summer written by eight indigenous scholars advocating for an “indigenous agenda in science” rooted in indigenous “lived experience.”

“White scholars must recognize, read and cite Indigenous scholarship,” the essay says. “But they must also engage with it in deep, relational ways and be open to fully understanding its messages, even if it makes them uncomfortable – especially, we argue, if it makes them uncomfortable.”

The scholars echo the spirit of Ibram X. Kendi and critical race theorists who insist that political neutrality is a myth, and that reluctance to endorse their cause is tantamount to endorsing white supremacy:

“Scientists must also attend to their own racism,” the scholars state. “It is not enough to be non-racist. Structural issues and inequities exist in the Western academy. Those who avoid engaging with racism and colonialism in scientific works and spaces merely promote the status quo.“

Transgender politics has now eclipsed racial equity as a rallying point for progressives. Trans “rights” has been a core commitment for Democrats at least since 2012, when then-Vice President Joe Biden first declared that trans rights is “the civil rights issue of our time,” a claim Biden repeated over the years and turned into the moral cornerstone of his presidency while in the White House.

The list of the movement’s demands is encyclopedic in scope. It includes puberty blockers with few questions asked, cross-sex hormones for adolescents, and access to sex-change surgeries. Activists also insist on the constitutional right of biological males who identify as women to access women’s sports, changing rooms, and other facilities. Hundreds of K-12 schools ban “misgendering” and conceal student gender transitions from parents if the student requests it. These positions are underpinned by years of scholarship in queer theory and gender theory, which question the moral and scientific legitimacy of binary gender and biological sex (see sidebar).

Of the many political conflicts involving transgender advocacy, one involves Catholic nuns in New York who operate a care facility for dying cancer patients. The nuns were threatened with fines by state authorities who demanded that the nuns assign transgender patients to rooms based on stated gender identity rather than biological sex, even over the opposition of a roommate. The state also says the nuns must use patients’ preferred pronouns, including when the patient is not present, or presumably even alive. The Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne have sued New York state officials in federal court to seek an exemption from state policy.

Polyamory Rising

Closely related to transgender activism is the push for full legal recognition for polyamory. Consensual non-monogamy is said to be as central to queer identities and the queer “lived experience,” so that discriminating against polyamory becomes a proxy for discriminating against LGBTQ+ people.

The mainline Presbyterian denomination, PCUSA, considered a proposal this summer on whether its clergy should be required to be monogamous or if they can engage in consensual extramarital relations or non-monogamous sex. Notably, the denomination did not reject the idea outright, but referred it to further study.

The queer-affirming group, More Light Presbyterians, released a statement saying that enforcing monogamy is tantamount to discrimination and that a Presbyterian vote for monogamy “will inevitably be experienced and enacted as an attack on queerness.”

The normalization of polyamory continues generating breathlessly supportive coverage from elite media that legitimizes and glamorizes free love: Scientific American (“An anthropologist’s detailed research shows polyamorists focus on intimacy and honesty, not sleeping around”), Los Angeles Times (“People in polyamorous relationships fight ‘shame,’ demand legal protections”), and The Guardian (“Polyamorous Americans are celebrating new laws establishing their ‘inherent worth and dignity'”).

Not everyone in the world of arts and letters is so sanguine about the imminent demise of a protean ideology that seems to have nine lives. As the sombrero-flaunting novelist Lionel Shriver has observed: “This dogma has infected all our institutions like a fungus. It won’t be easy to eradicate. Ever notice how quickly, after a full complement of treatments, athlete’s foot comes right back?”

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 19:15

Billionaire Governor Pritzker Embraces Socialist Candidates As The Future Of The Democrat Party

Billionaire Governor Pritzker Embraces Socialist Candidates As The Future Of The Democrat Party

It’s a common and almost inevitable component of communist history that the leaders of proletariat movements always end up becoming some of the wealthiest people in those movements.  The idea of “equity” is a fantasy; every society no matter how “progressive” has an elitist class with more money and more power than the common citizen. 

Socialist and communist societies have some of the most egregious power gaps imaginable; they even reinstate archaic systems of hereditary succession.  Just look at North Korea or the “princeling” (taizidang) system in China which favors the descendants of founding revolutionaries.  The notion of an economic Utopia where outcomes are equalized and no one has to struggle is a fantasy sold to the masses by clever elites seeking unfettered control. 

Someone always comes out on top, and it’s usually the same money-players that leftists claim to be fighting against.

For example, Democrat Socialist and rising Democrat star Zohran Mamdani comes from an affluent family with a net worth in the tens of millions.  Socialist and Islamist influencer Hasan Piker is worth $8 million alone, but his family is affluent with extensive corporate and political connections.  Ilhan Omar’s husband listed their net worth at up to $30 million before they suddenly revised it down to $95,000 in the face of voter backlash.  She is currently facing a DOJ investigation into her odd financial history.

The point is, these are not working class people who experience the struggles of the everyday laborer.  If they have not always been rich, they have at the very least always had a family safety net of considerable wealth.  Enter Illinois Governor JB Pritzker (a billionaire), who jumped on the Democrat Socialist train this week in an interview with CNN.

On CNN’s “The Source”, Pritzker defended progressive/Democratic Socialist candidates as the “recipe for winning” for the Democrat Party going into the future.  His statements come just as news hit that Kamala Harris has been in touch with Zohran Mamdani for months in preparation for the 2028 election cycle.  Meanwhile, new polls show that 32% of Democrat voters openly support socialist candidates.   

The trend is clear; the political left is either doubling down and embracing radicalism, or they are simply revealing their true nature.  The Democrat Party is riding the socialist wave and the extremists are in charge.  

Pritzker went on to suggest that Donald Trump’s concerns over the radicalism of socialist candidates are unfounded and a “sign of dementia”.  This is coming from the same man who outright denied that Joe Biden was showing signs of cognitive decline in the lead up to the 2024 elections, calling Biden “completely mentally sharp” during personal meetings.  

Pritzker, confronted with the potential hypocrisy of an ultra rich politician supporting his party’s shift into open socialism, suggested that he’s actually “one of the good billionaires”.

At bottom, there is a large contingent of billionaires and ultra-wealthy elites backing the Democratic Party and, like Pritzker, none of them are worried about socialist ideology taking over.  Why?  Because they know what the leaders of every communist revolution have known – That they will end up in charge regardless, and militant activists are nothing more than useful idiots paving the way for the elites to gain even more power.      

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 18:50

Building Codes For Energy Conservation Can Increase US Home Costs By $14,000: DOE

Building Codes For Energy Conservation Can Increase US Home Costs By $14,000: DOE

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

States that adopt the updated 2024 International Energy Conservation Code could see building costs for a typical single-family home go up by $14,000, the Department of Energy (DOE) warned on June 26.

The International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) is a model code developed by the Washington-based International Code Council (ICC) for setting minimum energy efficiency requirements for commercial and residential buildings.

While the ICC doesn’t mandate its code, states and local jurisdictions can choose to mandate the code in their building standards. The IECC is the most adopted across the United States as it is recognized in federal law as the national model energy code for low-rise residential buildings.

The DOE takes part in the ICC’s consensus process to update energy efficiency provisions of the IECC. The code is revised once every three years.

Regarding the latest IECC codes published in 2024, the DOE has determined that adoption of the code “would increase residential construction costs by more than $9.2 billion annually compared to the 2006 code levels, adding more than $127 billion in cumulative costs nationwide.”

The IECC model regulation forces “American families to pay thousands of dollars more upfront for a new home, while projected energy savings may take decades to materialize. In most states, estimated payback periods exceed 10 years, with some exceeding 20 years—locking American families into decades-long repayment timeframes and restricting consumer choice.”

According to the National Association of Home Builders, the 2024 IECC contains several provisions related to energy efficiency, including heat or energy recovery ventilation systems; installation of energy-efficient appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, and clothes washers; and the deployment of renewable energy resources on building sites.

In March 2024, when the 2024 IECC codes were approved by the ICC’s Board of Directors, the ICC said that the new codes were anticipated to improve energy efficiency for commercial buildings by roughly 10 percent, and for residential buildings by around 6.5 percent.

On Feb. 15 this year, the DOE sent a letter to the ICC, raising “serious concerns” about the trajectory of the IECC.

The purpose of IECC is to provide model building codes that can be adopted to provide energy efficiency gains for communities. However, in recent years, IECC has expanded its scope to focus on areas such as energy generation infrastructure requirements and greenhouse gas emissions. This shift risks undermining existing DOE objectives, the letter said. 

The department’s priorities for building energy codes involve ensuring affordability for American households and businesses, and safeguarding consumer choice to opt for their preferred appliances and equipment.

The DOE urged the ICC to return its codes to its traditional focus on building energy efficiency that would provide both “clear cost savings and beneficial efficiency advances” to consumers.

In its recent statement, the DOE said it encouraged the ICC to omit requirements related to onsite energy generation and greenhouse gas avoidance, which raise construction costs.

“This analysis shows how unnecessary regulations and ineffective building codes have drastically increased housing costs with little to no benefit for homeowners or communities,” Assistant Secretary of Energy Audrey Robertson said.

“Standard-setting bodies should take note: we prioritize the American homeowner and will not allow erroneous building requirements to push homeownership out of reach.”

The Epoch Times reached out to ICC for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

Ensuring Housing Affordability

The DOE said in its recent statement that it would continue implementing President Donald Trump’s March 13 executive order titled “Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Home Construction.”

In the order, Trump wrote that unnecessary regulatory barriers and “onerous mandates” have delayed construction and driven up the cost of new homes, making housing less affordable for Americans.

One of the provisions in the order directed the Secretaries of Energy, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Agriculture to take “appropriate action to reform and, where appropriate, eliminate unduly burdensome or costly energy-efficiency, water-use, or alternative-energy requirements regarding housing.”

This shall include reviewing and revising residential building energy codes, energy efficiency standards for certain new construction, and energy conservation standards for manufactured housing.

In a March 13 statement, HUD said that regulatory costs make up almost $94,000 in the final price of a new single-family home, with green energy mandates in building codes alone raising construction costs by $30,000.

As such, cutting red tape, including “onerous” energy and water requirements and “woke” green building codes, will boost housing stock and bring down the cost of newly built homes, the department said.

In April, HUD and the Department of Agriculture rescinded a policy related to energy standards, which HUD said would have pushed home construction costs by $20,000 to $31,000.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 07/02/2026 – 18:25