“Set your AC to 78 degrees, turn off lights/electronics you’re not using, and unplug what you can,” New York City Socialist Mayor Zohran Mamdani wrote on X late Wednesday.

New Yorkers are now getting a real-world lesson in what Mamdani’s recent “warmth of collectivism” comments actually mean: shared sacrifice, including being told to dial back air conditioning during blistering heat as the risk of power blackouts rises.

New York: it’s hot out there, and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool.

Set your AC to 78 degrees, turn off lights/electronics you’re not using, and unplug what you can.

Our City is doing its part too: maintaining the 78 degrees rule in our buildings,…

— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) July 1, 2026

The deeper issue here is that years of left-wing climate policies and poor grid management have left the metro area and the broader region increasingly vulnerable during peak-demand hours.

Temperatures are forecast to top 100F across NYC and large parts of the Mid-Atlantic and East Coast beginning today. The extreme weather is set to sharply drive up cooling demand, just as power grids are already under pressure from failed climate-change policies colliding with the era of data centers.

On Tuesday, the Energy Department issued emergency orders allowing PJM Interconnection power plants to bypass certain environmental limits to keep electricity flowing. Backup generators have been placed on standby on the grid serving 67 million people across 13 states.

New York City power prices climbed above $1,100 per megawatt-hour by late Wednesday afternoon. PJM expects to break its all-time peak load record of 165.5 gigawatts later today.

Authored by Amirhossein Eshtiaghi via The Mises Institute,

Bernie Sanders is a socialist populist. His unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of economics explains why he considers Denmark to be socialist. A former Danish Prime Minister once implicitly addressed such claims, noting that Denmark’s economy is not socialist, but rather a market economy. But the truth does not matter to American leftists.

He has now made headlines again with a bill that would expand state participation in the AI sector—a plan that, contrary to the claims of his supporters, could have disastrous consequences. In the following, these consequences are briefly examined.

This Is a Fascist Policy

Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, after the Soviet Union, were among the countries with the highest levels of state ownership and state control over the economy. In both Germany and Italy, the state controlled many companies, while private firms operated under strict state supervision and intervention. The Nazis nationalized nearly half of the economy and then used extensive regulations to bring the private sector under state control. Mussolini followed a similar approach. The state determined what goods would be produced, how they would be produced, and in what form they would be supplied.

Sanders says that artificial intelligence does not belong to billionaires but to the people. Fascists and Nazis used the same argument—that the private sector should be organized in line with the public interest—to justify extensive intervention in the market. In fact, Hitler and Mussolini were able to control the means of production in much the same way without removing corporate managers.

Comparing Sanders to fascism may seem unusual, but it should not be forgotten that the main leaders of Italian fascism, including Mussolini, were initially socialists before they became fascists. In fact, as Thomas DiLorenzo argues in his book The Problem with Socialism, fascism had socialist origins.

Regarding state ownership and state influence over AI, Sanders and Trump take similar approaches. Trump himself has admitted that the economic views of his voters and Sanders’s voters “aren’t that far apart”—and that may be one of the few honest statements Trump has made in his life. In fact, both are populists and seek to expand state power and weaken the free market economy.

Therefore, Sanders’s proposal, or similar proposals, could allow the state to gain control over the AI industry while preserving the appearance of private ownership. In that sense, such proposals can reasonably be described as fascistic, since they enable state control over production without formally abolishing the private sector.

A Threat to Civil Liberties

States have always used intelligence agencies and affiliated institutions to restrict social freedoms, silence opponents, and monitor users online. They also pressure various platforms to hand over user data so it can be used to suppress dissent. If the state becomes the owner of artificial intelligence companies, it will be able to collect users’ information freely and without any obstacles.

Sanders’s supporters might privately believe that this would be a useful tool for monitoring opponents, allowing the state to identify and silence those who oppose their leftist ideology. However, it must be remembered that this power is being granted to the state, not to a specific political party. If figures like Trump—or any other authoritarian personality—come to power, this authority will fall into their hands, allowing them to suppress those very same leftists. It empowers states to monitor anyone they deem an “undesirable element.” Ultimately, this could pose a serious threat to liberty.

Politicians already possess considerable power; control over artificial intelligence would multiply that power many times over—and more power brings more corruption.

Weakening Innovation

This policy threatens innovation. State favoritism can make it difficult for new and creative players to enter the market and can slow the process of “creative destruction.” It should also be noted that the managers of AI companies might even welcome such a situation, since it could allow them to eliminate new competitors in the industry and reach a monopolistic position.

After all, once the state enters the field, companies could rely on the support of politicians so they no longer have to compete with non-American companies. They might even use the argument that the state is a shareholder in AI companies to justify banning the use of AI systems from other countries in the United States.

The support of some AI companies’ executives for proposals that would lead to state involvement in this industry is highly suspicious. We will have to wait and see what happens, but it is possible that Sanders’s bill could actually help those same billionaires eliminate their competitors.

Technology Should Not Be Held Back

Obstructing technological growth is both foolish and harmful. The claim that artificial intelligence destroys jobs is a deceptive and misleading argument. Opposing AI in order to preserve certain jobs is just as irrational as trying to stop the spread of the internet because the use of email caused some postal workers to lose their jobs.

By the same logic, we should have banned the light bulb because it led to job losses in the candle-making industry. Likewise, we should have abandoned modern textile machinery because it allowed the same amount of clothing to be produced with fewer workers.

If we follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, we would have to return to the Stone Age. Innovation should not be stopped. Technological advancement and innovation are the primary engines of productivity growth and rising living standards. Just as old jobs disappear, new employment opportunities emerge. For example, many workers from traditional industries can find work in newer and more productive sectors of the economy. We should not hinder the growth of industries that can improve the lives of billions of people merely to preserve the jobs of a limited number of individuals.

A Populist Claim

Artificial intelligence, like any other industry, is built by entrepreneurs and producers, and its products are exchanged in the marketplace. The assertion that, “AI does not belong to billionaires; it belongs to the people” is akin to claiming that potatoes do not belong to their farmers but to “the people,” and that therefore, 50 percent of all farmland must be seized by the state.

Sanders is a master of slogans like “Billionaires shouldn’t exist,” and he is strategic in this choice. Were he to replace “billionaires” with “millionaires,” the slogan would inevitably implicate him and leftist celebrities. It benefits him to funnel jealousy toward billionaires, thereby shielding himself from public outrage.

If wealth is inherently evil, then being a millionaire is equally so. In that case, the left would be forced to chant slogans such as “Millionaires should not exist”—or perhaps even say, “Damn Sean Penn, Oprah, and Sanders.” After all, they are all millionaires.

The benefits of AI do not accrue solely to billionaires; billions of people worldwide utilize these tools—in medicine, education, and thousands of other fields. If private companies, absent rent-seeking or government handouts, earn profits through innovation and creativity, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. No one is forced to use AI; those who choose to do so effectively vote with their dollars to reward the companies that provide these services. One can only hope that Sanders has not used these tools or maintained an AI account himself—because if he has, he has been lining the pockets of the very capitalists he claims to despise.

The Abuse of a Public Wealth Fund

Politicians can abuse national wealth funds. In Russia, Vladimir Putin has leveraged the National Wealth Fund to bankroll the war in Ukraine. The US state could just as easily exploit such a fund to finance war or violate human rights. In this scenario, revenues generated from AI would be diverted away from vital investments in innovation and instead channeled into the production of bombs to be dropped on innocent people.

Conclusion

Regrettably, politicians from both major American parties seem determined to undermine the free market and the values of classical liberalism. From Trump’s foolish tariffs to Sanders’s socialist and demagogic policies, both are actively eroding the foundations of economic freedom.

Americans should not feel compelled to choose between economic nationalism and socialism, just as they were never truly forced to choose between fascism and socialism in the twentieth century. There is only one path worth pursuing: the defense of libertarian values.

The real solution to improving living standards lies in the state’s complete withdrawal from all economic and social spheres. Unless the American public shifts its focus toward the ideals of classical liberalism or libertarianism, we will continue to witness a cycle of populism from both parties, as well as state obstruction of growth and innovation.

Russia, whose refining capacity has come under significant strain in recent months, has started seaborne imports of gasoline from India (the same country it exports millions of barrels of oil to), Reuters reported citing industry ​sources, in an effort to mitigate fuel shortages triggered by ‌Ukrainian attacks on its energy infrastructure.

Fuel shortages are being felt across Russia’s 11 time zones with rationing, long queues at filling stations and a record gasoline price increase, as a result of relentless Ukraine strikes on the country’s refineries. 

On Tuesday, the Kremlin said that Russia was in contact with ​other countries and discussing imports of fuel at acceptable prices.

An industry source said ⁠at least 60,000 metric tons of gasoline have been dispatched from India to Russia. Another ​source said that two tankers, with parcels of 30,000 to 40,000 tons each, have been sent. A third ​source said that in total, Russia plans to import 400,000 tons of gasoline from various countries each month, including from neighboring Belarus, which has already been exporting fuel to Russia.

Gasoline consumption in Russia is at least 110,000 ​tons per day in summer, when demand for fuel is high.

It was not immediately clear which ​Indian refiner will be supplying gasoline to Russia.

President Vladimir Putin acknowledged on Sunday at a meeting with government ministers and other ‌officials ⁠that Ukrainian drone strikes on oil refineries had triggered fuel shortages in some regions, but said that Russia was dealing with them. 

Elsewhere, Belarus almost tripled gasoline rail supplies to Russia to more than 70,000 tons in the first half of June versus the first half of May, according to Reuters ​calculations and sources.

Russia’s parliament approved amendments ​to its tax ⁠code last week aimed at tackling the fuel shortages due to Ukrainian drone attacks, while also offering subsidies on fuel imports, pegged to Indian ​delivery costs and prices.

If Russia is the world’s gas station, then India is rapidly emerging as the world’s refiner: in what is emerging as a giant processing round trip, India’s crude oil imports from Russia surged to a record ​high in ⁠June, ship tracking data from LSEG and Kpler showed, as refiners snapped up Russian barrels to mitigate the impact of the Strait of Hormuz closure on other sources of supply.

Russian oil accounted for more ⁠than half ​of India’s overall imports in June, up from 36.5% ​in May, the Kpler data showed.

And now India is selling back the refined product back to Russia. 

India, the world’s third-largest oil importer, received about 2.70 million barrels per day of oil ​from Russia in June, preliminary data from Kpler and LSEG showed.

Authored by Alastair Crooke

The de-escalation framework that unfolded in the US-Iran Lucerne talks largely stayed true to the original Iranian 10-point plan. Meanwhile, President Trump and Vice-President Vance deliberately muddy the waters, claiming that Iran has already agreed to IAEA inspections of Iran’s nuclear facilities (a claim repeatedly denied by Iran): Vance announced that the IAEA could have begun inspections this week. No – – the “Framework” only refers to the possible IAEA supervision of the dilution to the 60% enriched stockpile subject to a final agreement with the US having been reached.

Trump, writing on social media, later falsely asserted: “Iran has fully and completely agreed to highest level Nuclear inspections long into the future.” In fact, the IAEA are only inspecting the joint Iran-Russia power station in Bushier at Russia’s request, because Russia wants to ensure compliance on its involvement. In other words, it is a Russian request to satisfy its own IAEA compliance commitment.

Trump then warned Iran that he may have to “finish the job [militarily]” — (if he doesn’t get a very good deal) — which, he says, would take “ about a week,” and adds that Iran will be required to use any unfrozen Iranian funds to be held in ESCROW accounts (accounts controlled by the US) to buy “corn and soybeans for their people, because right now their people are very hungry — and they’re buying exclusively from us.”

So, it’s pretty clear what’s ahead — Trump is reverting to his New York real-estate mode of negotiations. In the Art of the Deal, his 1987 book, ghost written by Tony Schwartz, the text advises the use of “extreme and unpredictable demands to create anxiety and force concessions from rivals.”

Thus, we are back to the General Kellogg playbook — Kellogg advised Trump that the only thing that works with Putin or the Iranians is pressure — and then still more pressure.

Familiar Trumpian tactics. Show a little initial flexibility to tease out adversaries in order to pull them into negotiations; subsequent false claims of Iranian concessions and extreme demands are then used to increase pressure on Iran (whilst Trump appears tough to the angry neocon constituency and to his “base” back home).

This style of pressure may work for New York real-estate deals, but will be ineffective with both Iran and Russia.

Such threats will be counterproductive with Iran, and place the US on a collision course. “The Islamabad understanding was not the result of pressure and coercion, but rather the result of the resistance and authority of the Iranian nation,” Mr Qalibaf, the chief Iranian negotiator, retorted.

In practical terms, as Will Schryver, a shrewd observer of the US military, notes, Iran has pressure points “more numerous and capable than the US can bring to bear on the battlefield” —

“In my view, [Schryver says], a powerful US military presence in the Persian Gulf region has become utterly untenable. They’re just trying to save face now. I do not believe, [he concludes] the US military can mount even a 72-hour high-intensity operation at this point in time.”

“But I think they’ll try. Probably just Trump bluff, but it would not surprise me if they try to play one last card to gain the upper hand.” (Maybe after the midterms, and with the US having rebuilt somewhat its munitions shortfall).

To which Iran likely will respond by closing the Strait of Hormuz again, and attacking, pari passu, regional (Gulf) infrastructure. Trump will be gaming the economy who first plays “Chicken.” A further military venture likely will only further erode American military standing.

Quite possibly, however, Trump may be prepared to cut his losses in Iran — the war anyway is a liability to his Midterm electoral calculus — by circling back to Ukraine and Russia. The Kiev Independent released a report yesterday, quoting a “senior Ukrainian official saying that Trump had privately given Zelensky the greenlight to act ‘more boldly’ against Russia.”

Here we go again, roundabout time — “Trump says he doesn’t really believe Putin will do anything without pressure,” the Ukrainian official added.

Simplicius speculates:

Trump has clearly been frustrated by his inability to settle any of the conflicts he had promised easily. And recently, on the heels of the Iranian memorandum saga, he even admitted that he would now be “turning his attention” back to Ukraine.

As such, it’s plausible that Trump would have given secret encouragement to the Europeans to ‘shape the battlefield’ in order to ‘soften’ Russia up ahead of whatever next Trump might have planned.

If this is true (and it probably is), the Europeans are playing with matches and risk lighting a conflagration. The E3 leaders, Starmer, Merz and Macron, met on 7 June with Zelensky to promise both unwavering support and — in the context of pledging further pressure on Russia —

…underlining the urgent need to scale up the production of interceptors; deep strike capabilities and anti-ballistic missile co-development — and further to support the future sustainability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

In short, the Europeans intend to ratchet up deep strikes into Moscow and St Petersburg, which will likely kill and unsettle their inhabitants.

The E3 carefully planned how to stage-manage the upcoming G7 summit, the EU summit, with Zelensky showcased at both events, promising to increase the pressure on “President Putin to agree to an immediate and complete ceasefire, taking the current contact line for its start-point.” European leaders also pledged to co-ordinate ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara (7-8 July) to achieve increased pledges of military support for Ukraine.

The E3 states are explicitly gearing up with new missiles to strike deeper, and more destructively, into Russia. The British government, for example, has announced that —

…the UK project to develop low-cost advanced long-range strike weapons for Ukraine has reached a significant milestone, with three British-designed systems successfully flight tested. The ground-launched strike weapons reportedly are capable of hitting targets more than 500km distant, at a speed of 600 km/h – whilst carrying a 225 kg warhead.

According to the Financial Times, Trump was “hugely impressed and enthusiastic” with Ukraine’s recent campaign of long-range strikes on targets deep inside Russia at last week’s G7 summit. At the summit, Trump also agreed to increase sanctions on Russian energy.

It is clear that the E3 had been plotting a major psy-op to convince Trump that Ukraine was not on the back-foot against Russia (as Trump may have been briefed); but rather had regained the front foot, and that the US should support the European agenda to force a Russian capitulation agenda (ceasefire, borders unchanged, reparations paid by Russia and war-crimes trials for Russian officials indicted with crimes, etc).

BREAKING AND UNUSUAL

It appears STRATEGIC matters will be discussed, as six red folders were seen during Putin’s meeting with members of the Security Council. pic.twitter.com/UFqMhzQFmw

— RussiaNews 🇷🇺 (@mog_russEN) July 1, 2026

These developments have brought two major developments out of Russia…

Firstly, senior Kremlin aides, notably Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s spokesman, have been saying over the past three days the “spirt” of the Anchorage summit, and its concomitant understandings, “have effectively collapsed” — “The US abandoned them.” Moscow no longer expects those commitments to be honoured and is focused solely on securing its own “victory” through military means.

Foreign Minister Lavrov went further, describing the Alaska meeting as an American “ploy” designed to buy time for Ukraine to rebuild and rearm its military — essentially likening them to the Minsk Accords that similarly were mounted as a deceit.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said:

We also see Washington’s line moving closer to the most rabid anti-Russian policies pursued by the US’s closest European allies – namely, the UK and France.

This represents a huge strategic shift. Russia no longer seeks a relationship with Washington, though contact with DC will continue.

The second development stems from President Putin’s address at the St George’s Hall to military cadets on June 23. Putin, in summary, told the young officers that the West manufactures a Russia threat, then accuses Russia of creating that very threat. This, said Putin, is a historically repeated pattern going back to 1941.

Putin implied that a threshold had now been crossed: He stated that whilst, until recently, NATO countries had limited themselves to supporting the Kiev regime to wage war on Russia, the West today is openly talking about preparing for a war against Russia, and is building up their military offensive budgets. German Chancellor Mertz has been quite vocal in this regard, Putin said.

Russia’s response, he said, is focused on modernizing its nuclear triad and its Army, and strengthening the combat capability of the Aerospace Forces and the Navy. The explicit mention of the nuclear triad in direct proximity to the discussion of Western preparation for war against Russia was certainly a pointed message to Trump and the Europeans.

Russia has heard the European clamor for war. It has now made the strategic decision in response to prepare for war in Europe.

South Korea’s won weakened for a fourth day as overseas investors accelerated their relentless sales of local stocks.

In response, USD/KRW rose 0.1% to 1,552.60, extending its four-day gain to 1.2% (i.e. KRW drop).

According to Barclays, pressure from both resident outflows and more recently in the case of Korea, heavy foreign outflows, could pose further headwinds even as exports performance remains robust and domestic equities extend their bubble. 

Let’s take a closer look at what’s driving the key moves in Korea.

Why was USDKRW higher?

Other than stronger USD, Goldman has been highlighting that rebalancing related equity outflow has been the dominating factor. Equity outflow from Jun 22nd till month-end amounted to US$18bn, bringing total Jun equity outflow to US$30bn. This follows the US$27bn outflow observed in May. As of today, Samsung and Hynix are 32% and 30% of MSCI Korea respectively, which are 7% and 5% above the 25% single stock limit. A combined 12% rebalancing effort would lead to another US$24bn outflow with US$200bn AUM (passive and active) estimated tracking MSCI Korea.

Additionally, other portfolio concentration limits such as UCITS and HF internal concentration limit rule are also likely to be driving the rebalancing related outflows. In terms of timing, some fast money rebalancing is relatively real time, while many real money and passive investors may rebalance at quarter-ends which led to more concentrated outflows.

FX hedging need by foreign investors drove RHS USDKRW demand. Goldman estimates average foreigners’ FX hedging ratio for Korean equities to be 10-15%, and the hedging mainly happens in offshore NDF market. As of March-end, foreigners’ exposure to Korean equities was US$1tn. Due to the 68% expansion in market cap in KOSPI in Q2, the associated FX hedging need rose by an estimate of US$68-US$102bn (US$1000*68%* 10-15%) during the quarter. This has led to sharp increase in RHS NDF hedging demand, some of which concentrated at quarter end as well. 

Other than above-mentioned hedging dynamics, FX hedging demand by USD-denominated total return swaps with leveraged equity underlying provided to offshore clients by local security houses via intermediaries also likely added to FX hedging demand in NDF market, especially as equity marketcap expanded quickly in Q2.  

Why did liquidity tighten?

• Sharp rise in borrowing by securities firm was likely the main driver behind tighter onshore liquidity. Surge in onshore retail margin trading and leveraged single-stock ETFs caused sharp rise in funding needs of local securities firms. In particular, with leveraged ETF, the need to post futures margin for hedging positions for securities firms drove the borrowing demand.

• Local news reported securities firms’ commercial paper and short-term bonds issuances exceeded KRW100tn each month and accounted for 80% of short-term bond issuance in recent months.

• Decline of collateral value for securities firms facing offshore counterparties worsens the liquidity situation. When local securities firms face offshore intermediaries on total return swaps, they not only have rising needs to post margins from underlying stock advance, but also from declining collateral value as KRW FX depreciated and KTB sold off. These dynamics further increased securities firms’ margin requirement in KRW terms, which in turn added to their local borrowing demand. Similar situation happened in late 2022 with KRW and KTB sold off sharply at the same time during BOK hiking cycle. Looking forward, local news reports Samsung securities plans KRW600tn short-term issuance in Jul, indicating such liquidity tightness is unlikely to ease. 
• Forthcoming BOK hike (starting in Jul per GIR base case) likely also added to the expectation of higher funding costs ahead.
• Goldman has observed widening of spread between NDF curve offshore and onshore FX swap. This could be a result of unwinding onshore-offshore arbitrage positions as RHS hedging demand caused sharp surge in NDF points. 

 
Looking ahead, if Korean equity continues to charge higher in a volatile fashion, combined with likely BOK hikes, Goldman thinks such liquidity environment is likely to stay or tighten further. Thus NDF points are likely to stay elevated and the bank prefers pay on dip. In a strong USD environment, KRW FX pressure is unlikely to ease from external forces, which does not help NDF points to fall either. On the other hand, if Korean equities fall meaningfully, NDF points may retrace, as smaller notional exposure to Korean equities by foreigners (either direct or leveraged) would reduce the associated FX hedging.

On FX spot, it is much harder to see sustained equity inflow in the short term: If Samsung/Hynix continue to lead KOSPI higher, equity rebalancing related outflow would further dominate; if equities fall, broad-based outflow is likely to follow which is likely to offset the positive FX impact from unwind of RHS hedging. Only when equities fall substantially so that Samsung & Hynix’s market cap fall under the concentration limits, a recovery from there may attract inflows.

Thus equity outflow may continue to weigh on KRW in the near future.

As market unwinds debasement trades and USD remains resilient, Goldman expects USDKRW may further rise gradually, with authorities’ various smoothing efforts help to limit the speed of KRW depreciation. Although Korean exporter USD selling is expected to rise as export grows organically and domestic capex expands, given current exporter conversion is already relatively high, Goldman expects large and volatile equity related flows to remain dominant for USDKRW path ahead. 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on Tuesday moved to end the more than 50-year ban on civilian supersonic flights over the continental United States, proposing rules that would allow aircraft to exceed the speed of sound provided they don’t produce a sonic boom.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) announced on June 30 that the FAA has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would replace the more than 50-year-old prohibition on overland civil supersonic flight with a regulatory framework focused on limiting noise rather than speed.

As Tom Ozimek reports for The Epoch Times, the proposal marks a key step in implementing President Donald Trump’s executive order signed last month directing the FAA to repeal regulations that the administration says have unnecessarily constrained U.S. aerospace innovation.

“For more than 50 years, outdated and overly restrictive regulations have grounded the promise of supersonic flight over land, stifling American ingenuity, weakening our global competitiveness, and ceding leadership to foreign adversaries,” Trump said in the order.

If finalized, the rule would clear the way for what the DOT described as a new generation of commercial supersonic aircraft capable of dramatically reducing travel times while minimizing the noise impacts that led regulators to ban such flights in the early 1970s.

“Restoring supersonic flight over land isn’t just about speed, it’s about unleashing American innovation and ushering in a Golden Age of Travel,” Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said in a statement.

Current regulations prohibit civilian aircraft from flying faster than Mach 1 over U.S. land except under special flight authorizations for research and testing in isolated test areas.

The FAA aims to finalize the rule by mid-2027.

Shift From Speed Limits to Noise Limits

Under the proposed rule, that blanket speed restriction would be replaced with a noise-based operating standard.

Aircraft operators would instead have to prove through FAA-approved measurement, modeling, or other methods that their aircraft can prevent excess levels of sonic boom overpressure at the ground.

By adopting a performance-based regulatory framework, the proposal would usher in what the FAA described as a clear pathway for “safe, efficient, and commercially viable operation of civil supersonic aircraft in the United States.”

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford said that innovative technologies have made it possible for the agency to rethink regulations adopted decades ago.

“Advances in aerospace engineering, materials science, noise reduction, and new operational concepts will eliminate the old sonic boom,” Bedford said in a statement. “This means we can ultimately repeal the ban from the 1970s on supersonic flight over U.S. territory while minimizing noise impacts to residents in communities along the route and near airports.”

Tuesday’s proposal follows Trump’s executive order directing the FAA to repeal the overland supersonic flight ban within 180 days and establish interim noise-based certification standards before developing permanent regulations.

The proposal will be open for public comment for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.

The Transportation Department said that, in addition to this first proposed rule, the FAA plans to put forward another one later this year that would establish landing and takeoff noise standards for supersonic aircraft.

“We are working at lightning speed to safely enable the next quantum leap in aviation technology and deliver an exciting new way to fly to the American flying public,” Duffy said in a statement.

The FAA cited Boom Supersonic’s February 2025 XB-1 test flight and NASA’s Farfield Investigation of No-boom Thresholds (FaINT) research as evidence that advances in technology have made a blanket ban on overland civilian supersonic flight obsolete.

Boom Supersonic founder and CEO Blake Scholl welcomed Tuesday’s announcement, saying in a post on X that “legalizing supersonic flight is a great way to celebrate America’s 250!”

“Boomless supersonic flight is technically feasible,” he said.

On July 1st, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced microreactor developer Deployable Energy had achieved criticality on their Unity reactor design at Idaho National Labs (INL). 

CRITICALITY NUMBER THREE! 🎉

On June 30, 2026, at around 11:55 PM MDT, @DeployableE’s Unity microreactor achieved initial criticality at @INL. It is the third nuclear test reactor this year to go critical under @ENERGY authorization.

Congratulations to Deployable Energy on… pic.twitter.com/TaIKbtnNTx

— Office of Nuclear Energy | US Department of Energy (@GovNuclear) July 1, 2026

This is the third privately developed and funded reactor to have obtained the nuclear milestone of sustaining a chain reaction of fissioning uranium atoms inside of a reactor core.

Executive Order 14301, “Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy”, was the starting point. The executive order contained, among many other things, a goal for the DOE to start up a reactor testing program that enabled rapid iteration and commercialization of advanced nuclear technology.

Soon after, the DOE launched the Reactor Pilot Program (RPP), as well as a sister program to fuel these reactors (in the future) called the Fuel Line Pilot Program (FLPP).

The selectees of the RPP included 11 different reactor projects:

• Aalo Atomics Inc.
• Antares Nuclear Inc. 
• Atomic Alchemy Inc.
• Deep Fission Inc. 
• Last Energy Inc. 
• Oklo Inc. (two projects)
• Natura Resources LLC
• Radiant Industries Inc. 
• Terrestrial Energy Inc. 
• Valar Atomics Inc.

Over the next several months, the developers raced to iterate through their designs with the goal of achieving criticality before America’s birthday, this upcoming weekend. 

First, Antares achieved zero power criticality on their sodium heat pipe design in the beginning of June. This was followed a couple weeks later when Valar achieved criticality on their gas reactor in Utah. Valar took the testing a step further to actually producing nuclear heat and performing critical safety tests on a live stream.

And just before reaching the July 4th holiday, Deployable Energy announced their success in achieving a chain reaction of fission in their core. 

Deployable Energy’s success is most notable because the company was not even a part of the RPP. The company was achieving iteration and criticality of their reactor design under the more recently launched Nuclear Energy Launch Pad. This program is the long-term successor project that will succeed the RPP in the FLPP for the years to come.

Multiple other companies are still in pursuit of initial criticality, which will enable them to continue on their path of iteration and preparation for commercializing their designs under the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This includes companies like Oklo, Radiant, and Aalo.