Iran's Mass Expulsion Of Afghans Poses A Dilemma For Many Of Its Supporters

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Most of them are opposed to the expulsion of any illegal immigrants, yet self-censoring their criticism of Iran’s policy discredits their criticisms of Trump’s similar one, while acknowledging the “Weapons of Mass Migration” pretext upon which Iran’s policy is premised justifies Trump’s.

Approximately 800,000 Afghans have reportedly been expelled from Iran ahead of Sunday’s deadline for undocumented members of this estimated 4 million-strong community to leave. Publicly financed Press TV said that the policy is aimed at mitigating the security threat that they pose after some of them were caught spying for Israel and carrying out terrorist attacks at its behest during the latest conflict. In any case, this poses a dilemma for many of Iran’s supporters, most of whom oppose Trump’s similar policy.

After all, Trump’s justification for expelling illegal immigrants from the US is also partially premised on security-related reasons, yet his opponents still condemn it as “racist”, “fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Some of these same opponents at home and abroad also strongly support Iran, especially in the context of the latest conflict, and criticizing it for any reason is thus deemed to be “politically incorrect” according to their dogma. Self-censoring criticisms of Iran’s expulsions, however, discredits their criticisms of Trump’s.

Opponents of mass expulsions also tend to be leftist-aligned regardless of how they politically self-identify (e.g. “moderate”, socialist, communist, etc.), so they’re already ideologically in favor of “open borders” or at the very least consider the expulsion of any illegal immigrants to be unacceptable. The abovementioned problem though is that criticizing Iran for its mass expulsion of Afghans, despite being driven by “anti-Zionist” security-related reasons, could lead to them being “canceled”.

That’s because their online activist community regularly carries out inquisitions against anyone who doesn’t perfectly conform with their talking points at any given time. Even constructive critiques of various countries, leaders, and policies, no matter how mild, can lead to one being viciously smeared as a “Zionist” or “CIA agent” and accused of “infiltrating” their cause in order to “subvert it from within”. Criticizing Iran on this point right after the latest conflict could therefore destroy someone’s reputation.

The crux of their dilemma is whether the concept of “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), which Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill introduced in 2010, exists. In this context, it refers to the weaponization of some migrant communities by foreign powers, exactly as Israel is suspected of doing with some Afghans vis-à-vis Iran. WMMs objectively exist, but most leftist-aligned activists have hitherto gaslit that they don’t, afraid to lend this concept credence that could then justify Trump’s policies.

It remains to be seen how this community as a whole reacts to Iran’s mass expulsion policy, if at all since most might prefer to remain silent to avoid being “canceled” by their peers, and whether they’ll still criticize Trump’s similar policy if they acknowledge that WMMs do indeed exist. The overarching issue is the interplay between ideology, groupthink, dogma, “cancel culture”, and resultant dilemmas, which isn’t exclusive to Iran’s supporters or leftist-aligned individuals but afflicts all causes.

For reasons of consistency, they’d do well to acknowledge that WMMs exist but with the caveat that they could be exploited as the pretext for massively expelling entire groups for ulterior reasons, which could even include those such as naturalized citizens who should be legally protected. The aforesaid proposal would require modifying the dogma to which many of Iran’s supporters adhere, however, which could ironically provoke a mass inquisition (“expulsion”) of suspected “subversives” from their ranks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:20

Iran's Mass Expulsion Of Afghans Poses A Dilemma For Many Of Its Supporters

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Most of them are opposed to the expulsion of any illegal immigrants, yet self-censoring their criticism of Iran’s policy discredits their criticisms of Trump’s similar one, while acknowledging the “Weapons of Mass Migration” pretext upon which Iran’s policy is premised justifies Trump’s.

Approximately 800,000 Afghans have reportedly been expelled from Iran ahead of Sunday’s deadline for undocumented members of this estimated 4 million-strong community to leave. Publicly financed Press TV said that the policy is aimed at mitigating the security threat that they pose after some of them were caught spying for Israel and carrying out terrorist attacks at its behest during the latest conflict. In any case, this poses a dilemma for many of Iran’s supporters, most of whom oppose Trump’s similar policy.

After all, Trump’s justification for expelling illegal immigrants from the US is also partially premised on security-related reasons, yet his opponents still condemn it as “racist”, “fascist”, and “xenophobic”. Some of these same opponents at home and abroad also strongly support Iran, especially in the context of the latest conflict, and criticizing it for any reason is thus deemed to be “politically incorrect” according to their dogma. Self-censoring criticisms of Iran’s expulsions, however, discredits their criticisms of Trump’s.

Opponents of mass expulsions also tend to be leftist-aligned regardless of how they politically self-identify (e.g. “moderate”, socialist, communist, etc.), so they’re already ideologically in favor of “open borders” or at the very least consider the expulsion of any illegal immigrants to be unacceptable. The abovementioned problem though is that criticizing Iran for its mass expulsion of Afghans, despite being driven by “anti-Zionist” security-related reasons, could lead to them being “canceled”.

That’s because their online activist community regularly carries out inquisitions against anyone who doesn’t perfectly conform with their talking points at any given time. Even constructive critiques of various countries, leaders, and policies, no matter how mild, can lead to one being viciously smeared as a “Zionist” or “CIA agent” and accused of “infiltrating” their cause in order to “subvert it from within”. Criticizing Iran on this point right after the latest conflict could therefore destroy someone’s reputation.

The crux of their dilemma is whether the concept of “Weapons of Mass Migration” (WMM), which Ivy League scholar Kelly M. Greenhill introduced in 2010, exists. In this context, it refers to the weaponization of some migrant communities by foreign powers, exactly as Israel is suspected of doing with some Afghans vis-à-vis Iran. WMMs objectively exist, but most leftist-aligned activists have hitherto gaslit that they don’t, afraid to lend this concept credence that could then justify Trump’s policies.

It remains to be seen how this community as a whole reacts to Iran’s mass expulsion policy, if at all since most might prefer to remain silent to avoid being “canceled” by their peers, and whether they’ll still criticize Trump’s similar policy if they acknowledge that WMMs do indeed exist. The overarching issue is the interplay between ideology, groupthink, dogma, “cancel culture”, and resultant dilemmas, which isn’t exclusive to Iran’s supporters or leftist-aligned individuals but afflicts all causes.

For reasons of consistency, they’d do well to acknowledge that WMMs exist but with the caveat that they could be exploited as the pretext for massively expelling entire groups for ulterior reasons, which could even include those such as naturalized citizens who should be legally protected. The aforesaid proposal would require modifying the dogma to which many of Iran’s supporters adhere, however, which could ironically provoke a mass inquisition (“expulsion”) of suspected “subversives” from their ranks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 09:20

Putin Shifts Iran Stance? Now Reportedly Supports Zero Enrichment Plan Backed By US

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told President Trump that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, according to US officials who spoke to Axios.

However, amid reports saying that the same message has been conveyed to Tehran, Iran's semi-official news agency Tasnim denied it, quoting an "informed source" as saying Putin had not sent any such messages.

Russia has long advocated that Iran should have the right to enrich, so Putin signing off on this 'zero enrichment' US plan marks what could be a significant shift, and much tougher position. Presumably a scheme like this would involve an external power like Russia shipping in the enriched product needed for nuclear energy plants.

Iranian state media, Politico

In the wake of the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which ended with the US bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump has declared as his red line that the Islamic Republic no longer enrich uranium.

Moscow, which has long acted as a diplomatic go-between involving Iran and the US, appears to now side with this US position as a way forward:

Citing three European officials and one senior Israeli official familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Moscow has encouraged Tehran to accept the “zero-enrichment" condition.

“We know that this is what Putin told the Iranians," a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

But again, the Iranians appear to be denying this, based on current state media reports.

The basic framework of 'deals' Washington has offered the Iranians is said to be that Tehran must abandon any all efforts for highly enriched uranium in return for sanctions relief.

“Putin supports the no-enrichment option. He encouraged the Iranians to move in this direction to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. But Tehran refused even to consider this possibility.”

–European official

But the Iranians have also been demanding answers to the question of when and how these layers of sanctions will be removed by Washington.

Iranian leaders also don't trust the US, given a history of flip-flopping on key agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of in 2018, during his first term.

Tehran is expected to reject taking enrichment down to zero, considering it sees as a matter of national sovereignty, but may agree to impose limits on enrichment and a monitoring regimen - though it just reportedly kicked UN IAEA inspectors out of the country.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:45

Putin Shifts Iran Stance? Now Reportedly Supports Zero Enrichment Plan Backed By US

Russian President Vladimir Putin has told President Trump that he supports the idea of a nuclear deal in which Iran is unable to enrich uranium, according to US officials who spoke to Axios.

However, amid reports saying that the same message has been conveyed to Tehran, Iran's semi-official news agency Tasnim denied it, quoting an "informed source" as saying Putin had not sent any such messages.

Russia has long advocated that Iran should have the right to enrich, so Putin signing off on this 'zero enrichment' US plan marks what could be a significant shift, and much tougher position. Presumably a scheme like this would involve an external power like Russia shipping in the enriched product needed for nuclear energy plants.

Iranian state media, Politico

In the wake of the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which ended with the US bombing three key Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump has declared as his red line that the Islamic Republic no longer enrich uranium.

Moscow, which has long acted as a diplomatic go-between involving Iran and the US, appears to now side with this US position as a way forward:

Citing three European officials and one senior Israeli official familiar with the matter, the outlet reported that Moscow has encouraged Tehran to accept the “zero-enrichment" condition.

“We know that this is what Putin told the Iranians," a senior Israeli official was quoted as saying.

But again, the Iranians appear to be denying this, based on current state media reports.

The basic framework of 'deals' Washington has offered the Iranians is said to be that Tehran must abandon any all efforts for highly enriched uranium in return for sanctions relief.

“Putin supports the no-enrichment option. He encouraged the Iranians to move in this direction to facilitate dialogue with the U.S. But Tehran refused even to consider this possibility.”

–European official

But the Iranians have also been demanding answers to the question of when and how these layers of sanctions will be removed by Washington.

Iranian leaders also don't trust the US, given a history of flip-flopping on key agreements like the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump pulled out of in 2018, during his first term.

Tehran is expected to reject taking enrichment down to zero, considering it sees as a matter of national sovereignty, but may agree to impose limits on enrichment and a monitoring regimen - though it just reportedly kicked UN IAEA inspectors out of the country.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:45

Explained: The UK's Potentially Terrifying Criminal Justice "Reforms"

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.

Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.

Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.

This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.

Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:

“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”

Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.

Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.

Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.

In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.

Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.

Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.

I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.

In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.

Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.

However, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Goodbye, right to appeal

Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.

It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:

I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.

incentivizing guilty pleas

The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:

Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)

Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.

A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.

But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.

Long-term Propaganda

The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.

Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.

We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.

The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.

This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.

It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.

More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.

Hate speech convictions

It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.

Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.

Prison reform

Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.

In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.

Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.

In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.

Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?

Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.

“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)

What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?

Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.

Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.

The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)

It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.

In summary

So, what can we conclude?

Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:

• Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)

• No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.

• Incentivised guilty pleas.

• No automatic right of appeal.

• Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.

In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.

But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.

And the start of a criminal justice system.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:10

Explained: The UK's Potentially Terrifying Criminal Justice "Reforms"

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

Plans to reform the UK’s criminal justice system – including the scrapping of jury trials for some offences and reduced sentences for those who plead guilty – are all part of larger “reforms” that would empower tyrannical authoritarianism.

Former senior judge and current Investigatory Powers Commissioner Brian Leveson made the news this week with the publication of his report recommending, among other things, “jury-free” trials, in order to “prevent the collapse of the criminal justice system”.

Note the language, by the way. “Jury-free“, not “jury-less“, as if juries are a food additive we should avoid, rather than a right guaranteed in British law for over 800 years.

This is not new. “Replacing”, “updating” or otherwise “reforming” Jury trials has been on the worldwide agenda for years now.

Within weeks of “Covid” starting, Scotland moved to suspend jury trials entirely (a move so unpopular they reversed it within 24 hours). At the same time, noted lawyers wrote opinion pieces for the Guardian headlined:

“Coronavirus has stopped trials by jury, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing”

Also in the Guardian, Simon Jenkins wrote that Covid had presented an “opportunity” to get rid of the old-fashioned jury trial system. He repeated the idea in another column a couple of months ago.

Less than a year later, Scotland wanted to waive jury trials again, this time in rape cases, to “protect the victim”. They scrapped that plan, too.

Not long after that, in the US, the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict caused the predictable pundits to rant and rave about the “broken” jury system.

In January 2023, the French government announced it would be scrapping jury trials for rape cases and all crimes with a maximum sentence of 15-20 years, citing a need to clear the backlog and make the court system more efficient.

Academic papers are even discussing the possibility of replacing jurors with ChatGPT-like artificial intelligences. A possibility to horrendous to contemplate.

Abolishing jury trials is like censorship, surveillance or digital ID – it’s a lid that fits every pot.

I don’t know what the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have against jury trials specifically, but it’s easy to speculate that the potential lack of control is an anathema to our ruling institutions and the rigidly patrolled society they are trying to create.

In the end, the motivation is as immaterial as the agenda is obvious.

Rather aptly, like a murder trial, lack of knowledge of motive doesn’t override direct evidence, and the evidence is clear: Jury trials are in the crosshairs.

However, there’s a lot more to it than that.

Goodbye, right to appeal

Leveson’s recommendations extend beyond jury trials; we covered them when they were first “leaked” back in April, but the final report is even worse than expected.

It takes aim at the Right to Appeal as well [emphasis added]:

I begin by recommending that the automatic right to appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court should be replaced with a requirement for a defendant to apply for permission to appeal.

incentivizing guilty pleas

The report also suggests offering up to 40% reductions in sentencing for early guilty pleas:

Although this is ultimately a matter for the government or the Sentencing Council, I would recommend an increase to the maximum reduction for entering a guilty plea to 40% (if made at the first available opportunity)

Combine this with the knowledge you’ll be tried by a judge (or tribunal) rather than a jury, and that’s a system directly incentivising pleading guilty.

A recipe for a huge increase in convictions.

But there’s more, and it goes beyond this report to the broader story of our criminal justice system. To see it you have to take a step back and see the big picture, like at the end of The Usual Suspects.

Long-term Propaganda

The narrative push for “reform” of the justice system is old, and the propaganda drive justifying it is even older.

Articles and reports complaining about the price, unfairness, and length of jury trials go back twenty-five years or more.

We’ve had literally years of propaganda bemoaning the low conviction rate for rape and sexual assault. We’ve had years of propaganda saying that alleged victims of rape and sexual assault need to be “protected” – including suggestions of testifying in secret, not being subject to cross-examination, and removing jury trials.

The intention was clearly to tee up this report (or one like it), which claims we should scrap jury trials and incentivize guilty pleas, specifically mentioning sexual assault.

This is an example of trying to establish what I would call the propaganda of illusory success. You create a fake issue from thin air and then claim your “reforms” have fixed it, generating praise for the scheme in the captive media that camouflages both the actual aims and real harms of the plan.

It works especially well when tied to identity politics or other emotive issues.

More broadly, the list of offences for which the report suggests scrapping juries is quite obviously cynically chosen to control the conversation. Sexual assault, drunk driving, animal cruelty, child pornography and incest. These are crimes that carry a social stigma such that a) the public generally assumes anyone accused is guilty, and b) nobody will want to be seen criticizing the reform, for fear of being labelled a child pornography/animal cruelty apologist.

Hate speech convictions

It’s not mentioned in the Leveson report, but a good percentage of the alleged “backlog” in court cases is due to a huge increase in “malicious communications” offenses. Over 12,000 people per year are arrested for social media posts etc., more than double the pre-pandemic numbers.

Increasing the number and types of criminalised behaviours will inevitably increase the number of “criminals”.

Prison reform

Prison “reform” is a major part of the plan for the future, too. Since Labour won the election last year, there has been a constant drizzle of “prison crisis” stories.

In March, we were warned of a “prison system in crisis” and that could collapse by 2026 if “rapid action” was not taken. The same month, Labour were “forced” to implement “Operation Safeguard” to deal with prison overflow.

Last month, a report claimed “overcrowded prisoners fuel prisoner violence”.

In September of last year, Labour very publicly released hundreds of criminals early in order to “ease overcrowding” (and make room for those newly convicted for “social media offences” following the incredibly fake “riots”). They later admitted to releasing dangerous criminals “by mistake”.

Why did this story hit the headlines? Why wouldn’t they do this in secret?

Because the outrage is part of the story. Because you’re being offered a false choice.

“Oh you don’t want us to release criminals onto the streets? I guess we’d better reform the justice system and increase our prisoner capacity then.” (And indeed, “Digital ID will help us track these released prisoners!”)

What will the proposed prison “reform” look like?

Well, for starters, it will be prison expansion rather than reform. That has already been confirmed.

Secondly, we probably can expect increased privatisation. The UK already has the most private prisons in Europe, with 17 of England’s 122 prisons, holding 18% of the prisoners, being run privately.

The first of Labour’s four new prisons, HMP Millsike, is already complete and is confirmed to be privately run (and “green” too, yay!)

It will be hard sell for a Labour government already seen as betraying its base on winter fuel payments, benefits and more, but it was Blair’s government that saw the UK’s first real surge in private prisons, and Keir is very much Blair jnr.

In summary

So, what can we conclude?

Let’s bullet point exactly what our “reformed” justice system might look like:

• Increase in criminalised behaviour (“hate speech” etc.)

• No jury trials for certain offenses, or any charges carrying a minimum sentence of 2 years or less.

• Incentivised guilty pleas.

• No automatic right of appeal.

• Expanded and increasingly privatised prison system.

In headlines up and down the country, Leveson has claimed the measures outlined in his report are needed to “prevent the collapse of our criminal justice system”.

But these measures ARE the collapse of the criminal justice system.

And the start of a criminal justice system.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 08:10

Russia Might Scrap Its Lone Aircraft Carrier After Persistent, Costly Problems

Russia's lone large aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov is designed to engage major surface targets, but it has been undergoing major repairs for over five years, and it's last mission of note was in the Mediterranean where it conducted airstrikes in Syria in support of the Assad government 

A fire in 2019 resulted in two fatalities and 14 injuries, and it has had to undergo a large-scale reconstruction process at at estimated cost of almost $260 million. It was supposed to be deployable again in 2022 - but this has been postponed time and again as the vessel keeps suffering problems, including sinking drydocks, and severe repair delays, and even reports of corruption related to its expanding budget.

Fresh reports out of Russia say the Kremlin considering decommissioning the Admiral Kuznetsov, according to the pro-government newspaper Izvestia, which further says repair and modernization work on the carrier has been halted.

Officials from the Navy High Command and the United Shipbuilding Corporation, which was charged with overseeing the repairs, are said to be assessing whether it’s feasible to return the vessel to service.

"The Kuznetsov belongs to a bygone era," Sergei Avakyants, former commander of Russia’s Pacific Fleet, described. "It’s an extremely costly and inefficient military asset. The future lies in unmanned systems and robotic technologies."

Other analysts have pointed out that the grinding Ukraine war has become the highest priority, and thus all the state's defense costs have been sunk into achieving objectives there

The Kuznetsov reaches back to the Soviet era, as it was launched in 1985 and commissioned in 1991, which has led many officials to conclude that it is now outdated.

In 2024, one US publication questioned, will it ever sail again? It's conclusion was likely not:

Aircraft carriers, in a way, are like a metric measuring a nation’s general fortune. Why? Because aircraft carriers are complex; aircraft carriers are extremely expensive – both to produce and to maintain. Accordingly, only affluent nations, with resources to spare, can burden the cost of developing and fielding an aircraft carrier.

The US, the world’s most powerful nation, has eleven “supercarriers.” China, an ambitious and revisionist “up and comer” is working to expand their aircraft carriers fleet – and is on the verge of fielding a third carrier. India has two. Italy has two. The United Kingdom has two – but has decommissioned 41 – suggesting the island nation’s decline in global relevance. And Russia, a hollowed out paper tiger, has just the Admiral Kuznetsov, which many assume will never sail again.

One military and maritime analyst, Robert Beckhusen, has written that Kuznetsov "is barely capable of doing what carriers are supposed to do: launch fighters. When she does, she uses a bow ramp instead of steam catapults, which forces reductions in planes’ takeoff weight and patrol time."

Russia’s only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" may be scrapped for metal

The cruiser has been under repair since 2017 and has faced a series of mishaps: in 2018, Russia’s largest floating dock sank, and in 2019, a major fire broke out on board. Modernization work has been… pic.twitter.com/1LXDzefdVk

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 11, 2025

At the same time, the Ukraine war has made clear that Russia is shifting battlefield tactics to heavy reliance on drone warfare. Also, it routinely launches cruise missiles from destroyers in the Black Sea.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 07:35

A partial of a much longer piece by Bruce Lesley. Health and food policies for low-income people and families will suffer under Tr__p’s take from the poor and give to the rich, the richest 10% of the nation in income. There is always day-old cake or bread to be had if they shop the corporate […]

The post “Robin-Hood-in-reverse” policies appeared first on Angry Bear.

France Opens Criminal Investigation Into X For Alleged Algorithmic Manipulation

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

The French Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an investigation into X over the alleged use of its algorithm for foreign interference.

According to a statement from Magistrate Laure Beccuau on Friday, prosecutors have launched a probe into whether X violated French law by manipulating its algorithms to extract user data fraudulently.

The investigation was launched after two reports were submitted to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office’s cybercrime division on Jan. 12 — one by MP Éric Bothorel, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble Pour La Republique party, and another by a senior government official whose identity was not disclosed.

In Bothorel’s statement posted Friday on X, he wrote that he filed his initial inquiry because he was “convinced that an informational bias, extreme on the X platform, was being used to serve Elon Musk’s political opinions and that this could only happen through algorithmic manipulation.”

He added that he was pleased that the “French justice system is taking meaningful steps to combat foreign interference.”

The case was referred to the General Directorate of the National Gendarmerie on Wednesday, officially launching an investigation into X. 

The investigation focuses on two elements: tampering with the operation of an automated data processing system as part of an organized group, and the fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system as part of an organized group.

France’s J3 cybercrime unit will lead the investigation. J3 conducted an investigation that led to the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in August 2024.

X faces growing scrutiny across Europe

Since Elon Musk purchased X in 2022, it has had several run-ins with regulators, especially in Europe. In February, two German NGOs won a ruling from the Berlin Regional Court that required X to provide access to publicly available engagement data to assist researchers in analyzing potential election interference.

The European Union is investigating X for a possible violation of the Digital Service Act. This new landmark regulation requires online platforms to take down illegal content and increase transparency around algorithms.

As Musk pushes to turn X into a financial hub with crypto at its core, mounting pressure from European regulators could undermine the trust he needs to secure approval for offering financial services in the EU.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 07:00

France Opens Criminal Investigation Into X For Alleged Algorithmic Manipulation

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

The French Public Prosecutor’s Office has opened an investigation into X over the alleged use of its algorithm for foreign interference.

According to a statement from Magistrate Laure Beccuau on Friday, prosecutors have launched a probe into whether X violated French law by manipulating its algorithms to extract user data fraudulently.

The investigation was launched after two reports were submitted to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office’s cybercrime division on Jan. 12 — one by MP Éric Bothorel, a member of French President Emmanuel Macron’s Ensemble Pour La Republique party, and another by a senior government official whose identity was not disclosed.

In Bothorel’s statement posted Friday on X, he wrote that he filed his initial inquiry because he was “convinced that an informational bias, extreme on the X platform, was being used to serve Elon Musk’s political opinions and that this could only happen through algorithmic manipulation.”

He added that he was pleased that the “French justice system is taking meaningful steps to combat foreign interference.”

The case was referred to the General Directorate of the National Gendarmerie on Wednesday, officially launching an investigation into X. 

The investigation focuses on two elements: tampering with the operation of an automated data processing system as part of an organized group, and the fraudulent extraction of data from an automated data processing system as part of an organized group.

France’s J3 cybercrime unit will lead the investigation. J3 conducted an investigation that led to the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov in August 2024.

X faces growing scrutiny across Europe

Since Elon Musk purchased X in 2022, it has had several run-ins with regulators, especially in Europe. In February, two German NGOs won a ruling from the Berlin Regional Court that required X to provide access to publicly available engagement data to assist researchers in analyzing potential election interference.

The European Union is investigating X for a possible violation of the Digital Service Act. This new landmark regulation requires online platforms to take down illegal content and increase transparency around algorithms.

As Musk pushes to turn X into a financial hub with crypto at its core, mounting pressure from European regulators could undermine the trust he needs to secure approval for offering financial services in the EU.

Tyler Durden Sun, 07/13/2025 - 07:00

Federal Funding and Politics, and Safety? When does the latter out-weigh the former? A Texas county devastated by deadly flooding earlier this month had rejected federal funds in 2021. Funds that could have helped install a flood warning system. However, local officials and residents were arguing they didn’t want to be “bought” by the Biden administration. As far back as […]

The post Not Accepting Federal Funding to Prevent Appearing as Being Bought by the Feds appeared first on Angry Bear.

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

• This Secretive Company Built An Empire By Hawking Bad Financial And Health Advice On Facebook: The Agora, sued by the SEC, FTC, and two state AGs, reaches hundreds of millions of people across social media with misleading promises of wealth and wellness. (Forbes)

• Who Goes MAGA? It is an interesting and somewhat macabre social media game to play while scrolling through your feeds: to speculate who in your network would go full MAGA. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—watching the 2016 election, the pandemic, January 6th, and now Trump’s return. I have come to know the types: the born MAGAs, the MAGAs whom social media criticism has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would fall for the grift. (TechDirt)

• Anatomy of a WhatsApp Stock Scam: The latest stock to get sunk. And more details on how these scams operate. (Herb Greenberg)

• Trump’s DOGE Cuts Are a Texas-Sized Disaster: Reckless agency layoffs and the dismantling of federal relief programs could leave the Lone Star State in peril. (Note: This was published Thursday, literally the day before flash flooding hit Texas, warning about the DOGE Cuts) (Texas Observer) see also Texas lawmakers failed to pass a bill to improve local disaster warning systems this year: A GOP state lawmaker who represents Kerr County says he likely would vote differently now on House Bill 13, which would have established a grant program for counties to build new emergency communication infrastructure. (Texas Tribune)

• Florida is letting companies make it harder for highly paid workers to change jobs, thanks to Ken Griffin: Florida enacted a law allowing non-competes of up to four years. The law targets high earners with access to confidential company information. Citadel was among the companies that lobbied for the law. (MSN)

• Elon Musk’s Grok Is Calling for a New Holocaust: The chatbot is also praising Hitler and attacking users with Jewish-sounding names. (The Atlantic) see also How exactly did Grok go full ‘MechaHitler?’ xAI has yet to give a comprehensive answer. (Engadget)

• This tax testifies to the utter corruption of conservative thought: Congress is coming for your EV — and what’s left of conservatism. Congress is proposing that the federal government slap a tax on something you have already purchased, whether you drive it or not, just because you own it. It’s no different from saying you now have to start paying an annual tax on that second refrigerator in your basement or the computer in your backpack. (Washington Post)

• ‘It’s too late’: David Suzuki says the fight against climate change is lost: “We have failed to shift the narrative and we are still caught up in the same legal, economic and political systems,” said David Suzuki in an exclusive interview with iPolitics. “For me, what we’ve got to do now is hunker down.” (iPolitics)

• Inside America’s Death Chambers: What years of witnessing executions taught me about sin, mercy, and the possibility of redemption (The Atlantic)

• The Death of Partying in the U.S.A.—and Why It Matters: Young Americans today spend 70 percent less time attending or hosting parties than they did at the beginning of the 21st century. Why? (Derek Thompson)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this week with Richard Bernstein, founder of RBA. The firm focuses on Macro trends, and manages (or advises on) $15.7B AUM. Previously, he was Chief Investment Strategist at Merrill Lynch from 1988-2009. Bernstein was named to Institutional Investor’s “All-America Research Team” 18X, and inducted into the Institutional Investor “Hall of Fame.”

In 2000, we declared measles eliminated in the US. Now, 2025 already has the highest number of cases since 1992

Source: @SteveRattner

<a” href=”https://mailchi.mp/005fb77d75b9/ritholtzreads” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener noreferrer”>Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Trump is counting on his base not understanding that tariffs are a consumption tax. They make imported goods more expensive and allow domestic producers to jack up their prices by relieving competition. “[Douglas Holtz-Eakin] added that Trump was using the letters to demand attention, but, “In the end, these are letters to other countries about […]

The post Trump threatens EU and Mexico with higher consumption taxes on Americans appeared first on Angry Bear.

July 4th Is Behind Us. The American Dream Is Not

Authored by Gonzalo Schwarz via RealClearPolitics.com,

Another July 4th has come and gone, and the American experiment continues to face many tests. Amid economic uncertainty and a recent resurgence of socialism, we are pushing the boundaries of what “America” even means.

Benjamin Franklin famously preferred “a republic, if you can keep it.” Even though the U.S. Constitution had formed a republic, it was up to the people to keep it alive and well. The same applies today, and there is much more to America than flag parades, fireworks, and summer barbecues.

Now, we go back to our petty squabbles, ready for the next debate on Capitol Hill after the “Big, Beautiful Bill” reached the finish line. More and more Americans are pessimistic that we can “keep” our republic for the next generation. More people think the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis than believe that democracy still exists. Most are concerned about threats to democracy, and political violence in particular.

It begs the question: What is holding us all together?

Perhaps our founding document said it best about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” keeping the flame of freedom alive.

However, the American Dream is a better representation of American ideals in our current times. There is no better chance at national unity than the American people seeking to live better, richer, and fuller lives, regardless of where they started and their circumstances at birth. It transcends identity politics, and new research proves it.

According to the sixth annual edition of the Archbridge Institute’s “American Dream Snapshot,” people are still optimistic about the promise of America and their own chances of living their dreams. Most Americans (seven in 10) believe they have achieved the American Dream or are on their way to achieving it, regardless of race, income, or education.

In other words, the American Dream is alive and well. Compared to last year, fewer people say that the American Dream is out of reach. And most believe they have more or about the same opportunities as their parents, meaning that our nation continues to be the land of opportunity. 

Most people continue to understand that living better and fuller lives – rather than simply becoming wealthy – is essential to the American Dream. “Freedom of choice in how to live” (83%) and “having a good family life” (80%) remain the most important achievements associated with the American Dream. In comparison, only 15% of U.S. adults claim becoming wealthy is essential – down from 19% last year.

Of course, many challenges remain. While believing in themselves, Americans are less optimistic about their fellow citizens, with only 51% believing that most Americans can achieve their American Dream. Nearly 60% of Americans say that recent tariff increases will make it more difficult for them to achieve the American Dream, and only 12% believe higher tariffs will help them.

When it comes to advancements in artificial intelligence, most Americans are ambivalent about the effects of technology on the American Dream, although pessimism is more common than optimism. Half (51%) of U.S. adults think AI will not affect their pursuit of the American Dream, but 31% of people believe it will have a negative effect, and only 16% think that AI will have a positive effect.

Economic anxiety cannot be overstated. Among the 30% of people who think the American Dream is out of reach, over half blame economic conditions.

But, on the bright side, economic issues are easier to address than more intractable cultural problems, such as a fundamental disbelief in the American Dream – only 8% of the aforementioned 30% believe this to be the case.

Post-July 4th and the passage of Congress’ tax bill, now is a time to take stock. As we dive headfirst into future political debates, we must ensure that criticism and pessimism about the American Dream do not become self-fulfilling prophecies, recognizing the need for hope and optimism while also striving to remove barriers to opportunity. 

As Benjamin Franklin said, it is up to us to keep the promise of America alive, or the experiment will fail. Even and especially when there are no national holidays to celebrate, we must keep the flame of the American Dream alive daily, promoting a culture of human flourishing for all.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/12/2025 - 23:20

IDF Soldiers Say Grenade-Drones Being Used On Civilians: 'None Of Them Were Armed'

The Israel Defense Forces are routinely killing civilians in Gaza with commercial drones modified to drop grenades on them -- often leaving the corpses to be eaten by dogs, according to interviews with seven soldiers and officers conducted by Israeli investigative journalists. The tactic is being used to deter civilians from venturing into areas declared off-limits by the IDF, with indifference to the fact that the individuals -- some of them children -- pose no threat. Compounding the amorality of the conduct, the soldiers say the off-limits areas aren't marked on the ground.   

According to Israel's +972 Magazine and Local Call, every Palestinian killed in this fashion was counted as a "terrorist" in the IDF's official reporting. The soldiers say that's utterly false. One soldier identified as "S" says that he coordinated dozens of drone attacks over the 100 days his unit was deployed in the southern Gaza city of Rafah, and that the vast majority of the dead were unarmed civilians. The only two exceptions were a single executed Palestinian who merely had a knife, along with only one legitimate encounter with armed militants. 

A Chinese Autel EVO drone like those weaponized by the IDF with a grenade-dropping function (ZLEA/CC BY-SA 4.0 via +972 Magazine)

By his recollection, the battalion killed a civilian in this fashion on a daily basis, even though it was obvious to him that the Palestinians posed no threat. “It was clear that they were trying to return to their homes — there’s no question. None of them were armed, and nothing was ever found near their bodies. We never fired warning shots. Not at any point.”

Adding another layer of horror to the IDF-orchestrated hell that is Gaza, the corpses -- which were upwards of a mile from their killers -- were typically left to be eaten by dogs, says S.: 

“You could see it on the drone footage. I couldn’t bring myself to watch a dog eating a body, but others around me watched it. The dogs have learned to run toward areas where there’s shooting or explosions — they understand it probably means there’s a body there.”

Worse, S. said children have been deliberately targeted: 

“There was a boy who entered the [off-limits] zone. He didn’t do anything. [Other soldiers] claimed to have seen him standing and talking to people. That’s it — they dropped a grenade from a drone...In most cases, there was nothing you could tell yourself. There was no way to complete the sentence, ‘We killed them because ____.’”

“There were many incidents of dropping grenades from drones,” said H., a soldier who'd been deployed to central Gaza.  . “Were they aimed at armed militants? Definitely not. Once a commander defines an imaginary red line that no one is allowed to cross, anyone who does is marked for death,” even just for “walking in the street.” These new accounts are consistent with previous reporting that the IDF creates "kill zones" where soldiers shoot anyone moving inside the area, followed by the IDF boasting that another terrorist was killed. Where IDF soldiers' ability to mow down civilians in kill zones was previously limited by the range of their rifles, drones now let them kill from several kilometers away.  

Exclusive |

Aerial footage obtained depicts Israeli soldiers dropping grenades from a drone, targeting a group of civilians fleeing Netzarim last September. One person is visibly struck and collapses

Netzarim became a kill zone, and as the military gradually expanded it, so did… pic.twitter.com/QPW2EVHJ3D

— Younis Tirawi | يونس (@ytirawi) July 3, 2025

Elaborating on this capability, a soldier called "Y." described how he and other soldiers made bloody examples of Palestinians who entered forbidden areas: 

“You send a drone up 200 meters high, and you can see three to four kilometers in every direction, You patrol like that: you see someone approaching, the first one gets hit with a grenade, and after that, the word spreads. One or two more come, and they die. The rest understand.”

When killing wasn't automatic, the criteria used to determine who is dangerously suspicious was so expansive as to capture just about anyone. “[Someone who] walks too fast is suspicious because he’s fleeing. Someone who walks too slowly is also suspicious because [it implies] he knows he’s being watched, so he’s trying to act normal," said S. Soldiers say even the simple act of bending over is sufficient basis for dropping a grenade on a Palestinian. 

Most of these grenade-dropping drones are modified EVO models manufactured by China's Autel for photography use, +972 Magazine reports. They only cost about $3,000 compared to $2 million for Israel's military-grade Elbit Hermes 450. The IDF modifies the EVOs with a military "iron ball" appendage that can carry a grenade dropped by the push of a joystick button. H. described how drones change the nature of taking a human life: 

“This technology has made killing much more sterile. It’s like a video game. There’s a crosshair in the middle of the screen, and you see a video image. You’re hundreds of meters away, [sometimes] even a kilometer or more. Then you play with the joystick, see the target, and drop [a grenade]. And it’s even kind of cool. Except this video game kills people.”

One soldier who spoke to +972 Magazine said he recalled signing thank-you letters addressed to Americans who donated drones to his unit.  Autel says it hasn't supplied its photography drones to Israel: "We find the prospect of our products being associated — even mistakenly — with violence against civilians to be utterly unacceptable. Autel Robotics has never sold drones to any users in the Israeli region, including but not limited to the Israeli military or Ministry of Defense."

Gaza's Khan Younis in ruins on the one-year anniversary of the Hamas invasion of Israel (Bashar Taleb / AFP via Turkiye Today)

Enforced by these routine killings of civilians in "kill zones," the coerced depopulation of entire areas goes hand-in-hand with the recent announcement by Israel's defense minister that the IDF is going to build a concentration camp in Rafah, the southernmost Gaza city. The plan is to force all 2 million residents of Gaza into a "humanitarian city" ringed by IDF guards preventing anyone from leaving.   

Last month, a different group of IDF soldiers offered their own damning testimony about the IDF's conduct, confirming the routine use of deadly force on unarmed Palestinians as a barbaric form of crowd control at distribution points for humanitarian aid. Israeli Prime Minister repeatedly calls the IDF "the most moral army in the world." They say if a lie is repeated enough, it becomes the truth -- but it's hard to fathom the quantity of lies necessary to overcome the growing stack of damning testimonies from IDF soldiers and officers.  

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/12/2025 - 22:45

What Just Happened In Rio Should Terrify The West

Authored by Farhad Ibragimov,

A few days ago, the city of Rio de Janeiro hosted the 17th BRICS summit, marking a significant step forward for the organization amid the accelerating transformation of the global political and economic landscape. Represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia played an active role in the summit’s proceedings, while President Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session via video link. In his remarks, the Russian leader offered a comprehensive analysis of current global trends, emphasizing that the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.

The Rio summit reaffirmed BRICS’ growing political weight and its ambition to become a key force in shaping the emerging multipolar order. High-level meetings drew global attention not only because of their scale but also due to the substantive outcomes they produced. A total of 126 joint commitments were adopted, spanning critical areas such as global governance reform, the restructuring of international financial institutions, healthcare, climate initiatives, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.

The declaration adopted at the summit, titled ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’, underscored BRICS’ commitment to multilateralism, respect for international law, and the promotion of a fair and equitable world order. But beyond the formal language, the summit revealed a deeper shift: BRICS is no longer limiting itself to cautious technocratic dialogue. The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as a cohesive international actor – capable of proposing new frameworks for economic integration, political solidarity, and global coordination.

Crucially, this political reorientation did not begin in Rio. It builds directly on the strategic groundwork laid during the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia – the largest BRICS gathering to date – which brought together not only member states but also dozens of partners under the BRICS+ umbrella. The Kazan summit established a new level of cooperation and ambition, and Rio served as a continuation of that trajectory. It became the arena where aspirations evolved into policy, and where the Global South began to more clearly articulate its place in the world.

From economic cooperation to collective security

Among the most consequential developments at the Rio summit was the firm commitment to advancing financial sovereignty among member states. Particular emphasis was placed on transitioning to transactions in national currencies – a long-standing initiative championed by Russia and several other BRICS countries. The leaders endorsed this direction, recognizing the need to reduce dependence on dominant reserve currencies. President Putin underscored that this was not merely an economic measure, but a geopolitical move aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of participating nations and insulating them from external pressure.

In support of this goal, the summit produced agreements to boost mutual investment volumes and accelerate the development of independent payment and settlement mechanisms. These initiatives are designed to lay the groundwork for a more resilient financial architecture – one that bypasses traditional Western-controlled institutions and empowers countries to determine the terms of their own economic cooperation. Increasingly, BRICS views economic autonomy as a precondition for long-term political independence in a world marked by volatility and polarization.

But the Rio summit did more than solidify the BRICS financial agenda. For the first time in its history, the organization made a strong, collective political statement on an issue directly related to international security. The final declaration included a specific condemnation of Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Russia’s Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions. Referring to the bombings of bridges and railway lines on May 31, June 1, and June 5, 2025, the text reads: “We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks against bridges and railways infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians.”

This passage carries substantial symbolic and strategic weight. Despite the ideological and political diversity of BRICS members, the bloc united in denouncing attacks that threaten the internal security of one of its founding members. This is a marked departure from the organization’s previously cautious diplomatic tone on sensitive geopolitical issues. BRICS, once defined by its reluctance to address matters of military conflict or security, is now building a normative foundation for solidarity and shared responsibility.

The inclusion of this clause suggests that BRICS is beginning to embrace a collective role in shaping norms related to international conflict and security. It signals that the alliance is willing to defend the principle of territorial integrity not just rhetorically, but through coordinated diplomatic action. This is more than a gesture – it is the foundation of a future in which BRICS may serve not only as an economic bloc, but as a political and moral anchor in a divided world.

The American reaction: why Washington is nervous

Just 48 hours after the release of the Rio declaration – particularly the section denouncing unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures – US President Donald Trump issued a sharp response. From the White House lawn, he threatened to impose a 10% tariff on all imports from BRICS countries and accused the bloc of attempting to “degenerate the dollar.” In characteristically blunt terms, he remarked: “If you have a smart president, you will never lose the standard. If you have a stupid president like the last one, you would lose the standard.”

While Trump’s words may have been wrapped in personal bravado, the underlying message was clear: Washington sees BRICS not as a neutral economic club, but as a mounting strategic threat. Despite the bloc’s repeated assertions that its cooperation is not aimed against any third party, the West views efforts to establish alternative economic frameworks – particularly those bypassing the dollar and Western-controlled institutions – as an existential challenge to US hegemony.

The nature of the response underscores a deeper anxiety in Washington. BRICS initiatives once dismissed as symbolic or impractical are now materializing into real structures: trade in local currencies, independent payment systems, and new investment platforms with global reach. These are not just alternatives – they are systemic innovations that call into question the foundations of the current world order.

Trump’s outburst, then, is not just a political sideshow. It is evidence that BRICS is crossing a threshold – from peripheral relevance to central influence in global affairs. For years, Western analysts argued that the bloc would collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. Yet BRICS has not only endured – it has expanded, institutionalized, and begun to assert itself in domains once considered off-limits.

The American reaction confirms what many in the Global South already perceive: that BRICS is no longer a passive forum for South-South dialogue. It is becoming an active agent in reshaping the architecture of international power.

No turning back: BRICS as a systemic alternative

The Rio summit left little doubt that BRICS is evolving beyond its original mandate. Once focused primarily on economic coordination, the bloc is now laying the institutional groundwork for an alternative system of global governance – one rooted in sovereignty, equality, and resistance to unilateral pressure. This transformation is not driven by ideology but by the lived experience of its member states, many of which have faced the political and economic consequences of a Western-dominated order.

Three strategic vectors are propelling BRICS forward.

• First, its geo-economic advantage: the bloc is consolidating control over key global trade routes and resource markets. With the accession of new members in 2024-2025 – including Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia – BRICS now spans critical logistical corridors across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. The bloc also commands a significant share of the world’s reserves in energy, rare earth elements, and agricultural commodities, granting it considerable influence over global supply chains and commodity pricing.

• Second, BRICS possesses an increasingly potent force of attraction. Despite mounting external pressure and efforts to isolate its members, more than 30 countries have applied for membership or partnership status. This groundswell reflects a growing desire among Global South nations for a platform free from ideological gatekeeping, conditional loans, or weaponized sanctions. BRICS, in their eyes, is not just a bloc – it is a symbol of multipolarity, mutual respect, and strategic independence.

• Third, BRICS is beginning to serve as a functional alternative to gridlocked institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Without explicitly seeking to replace them, BRICS offers a more agile and consensus-based model – one that prioritizes non-interference, sovereignty, and pragmatic cooperation over rigid norms or selective enforcement. Its representation of the world’s demographic and economic majority lends it moral and political weight, especially in a context where trust in traditional global structures is in sharp decline.

In this light, the anxiety emanating from Washington is not simply reactive – it is anticipatory. The US and its allies understand that what BRICS is building is more than a set of alternative institutions. It is a rival paradigm: one that challenges the monopoly of the dollar, rejects coercive diplomacy, and proposes a new vocabulary for international legitimacy.

The Rio summit demonstrated that BRICS is not content to remain a forum of dialogue. It is becoming a vehicle for action. The question is no longer whether BRICS will shape the future of global governance, but how – and how fast. What began in Kazan, and accelerated in Rio, is a project with momentum. And in the shifting landscape of 2025, that momentum now appears irreversible.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/12/2025 - 22:10

10 Non-Tax Policies In Trump's Megabill That Will Affect Americans

Authored by Jackson Richman, Joseph Lord, Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is notable for implementing significant changes to the U.S. tax code, including making 2017’s individual income tax brackets permanent.

But there are non-tax-related items in the bill that will impact the lives of everyday Americans, affecting travel, women’s health care, immigration, and welfare benefits.

Here are ten major non-tax areas that are addressed in the legislation, which President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4.

Air Traffic Control

The new law provides $12.5 billion to the Transportation Department to institute long-overdue reforms to the nation’s air traffic control system.

That includes $4.75 billion to upgrade copper telecommunication infrastructure to fiber optics, $3 billion for radar systems replacements, $500 million for safety technology to avoid near-misses on runways, and $100 million for advanced training technology for air traffic controllers.

At a July 8 cabinet meeting, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy called the funding a “massive new start to rebuild air traffic control,” but said his agency will need more money to upgrade American aviation and make it the world’s leader.

Duffy has repeatedly pointed to the Federal Aviation Administration’s outdated technology and infrastructure, which still relies on floppy disks, aging copper wire, and rotary phones.

Despite the need for more funds, the bill could help reduce and avoid the sorts of delays that infamously bogged down Newark International Airport in New Jersey earlier this year.

Air traffic controllers monitor planes at Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles on July 1, 2025. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the Transportation Department will receive $12.5 billion to implement long-overdue reforms to the U.S. air traffic control system. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Border and Immigration

The legislation dedicates a total of $150 billion toward border security and immigration enforcement, aligning with some of Trump’s core promises on the 2024 campaign trail.

Approximately $80 billion of that amount is slated for domestic immigration enforcement operations.

The single biggest immigration item in the law is $46.5 billion dedicated to the construction of a border wall along the U.S.–Mexico border.

Much of the rest is slated for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency largely responsible for carrying out Trump’s mass deportation operation.

That includes $45 billion allocated for detention through September 2029—a 365 percent increase over ICE’s prior annual detention funding, which sat at $3.4 billion, according to the American Immigration Council. It provides $14.4 billion for transportation and removal operations, a 500 percent annual increase.

For state and local governments that assist with deportation efforts, $13.5 billion is allocated in grants.

Border Patrol agents monitor the U.S. border wall in San Ysidro, Calif., on July 25, 2024. The new legislation allocates $150 billion for border security and immigration enforcement. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Education

The bill makes several notable tweaks to federal education policy.

First, it would reduce Pell Grant eligibility for high-income students and students with full-ride scholarships. The approximately $7,000 annual grant has long provided a boost to funding Americans’ higher education.

The bill also proposes two federal student loan repayment plans, including one traditional repayment plan and one income-based repayment plan, as Republicans seek to do away with President Joe Biden’s contested Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan.

Additionally, it would tax college and university endowments at a variable rate—either 1.4 percent, 4 percent, or 8 percent—based on the institutions’ wealth.

Medicaid and Rural Hospitals

Some of the changes that have drawn the most attention are those made to Medicaid funding—changes that are expected to boot millions of beneficiaries off the entitlement program while potentially impacting rural hospitals.

To reduce Medicaid spending, the bill would impose an 80-hour monthly work requirement for able-bodied adults to receive benefits; the change would take effect by no later than December 2026.

It also reduces the “provider tax”—the rate at which states tax hospitals and doctors to pay for their Medicaid programs—from 6 percent to 3.5 percent in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Ten states that didn’t expand their programs will see no changes. That change won’t go into effect until 2028.

To offset fears that the changes would harm rural hospitals, the bill allocates $50 billion over five years to support such facilities.

Estimates vary significantly as to how many individuals could lose coverage as a result of the Medicaid changes. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that several million nationwide could lose coverage.

A man waits in a hospital in Irvine, Calif., on July 8, 2025. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes changes that could remove millions from Medicaid and impact rural hospitals. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

SNAP Cuts

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes new requirements for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps.

In addition, the bill introduces more stringent work requirements for SNAP recipients. Currently, able-bodied recipients between 18–54 must spend 80 hours a month volunteering, working, looking for a job, or being in school. The bill widens that window to between 18-64 years of age.

Moreover, states will have to shoulder more of the burden when it comes to funding for SNAP. That means recipients could receive less in food stamps or lose access entirely, depending on the state in which they live.

‘Trump Accounts’ for Newborns

The bill also adds a pilot program for “Trump Accounts,” a type of federal trust account that comes prefunded with $1,000 from the Treasury Department for every child born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028. Children born before this year will also be eligible, but not for the initial $1,000 seed money.

The scheme allows Americans to contribute up to $5,000 a year to these accounts.

The money must be invested in a broad stock market index, and earnings will grow tax-deferred until the account holder withdraws the funds. Beneficiaries are eligible to withdraw half the money for qualified purposes when they reach the age of 18, and can access the full balance at age 25. Withdrawals would then be subject to either capital gains or income tax rates, depending on the nature of the expense.

Expenses such as tuition, a first home purchase, or small business expenses would be subject to the lower capital gains tax rate; all other uses of the funds would be subject to normal income tax rates, including an additional 10 percent penalty for nonqualified expenses.

People walk on the Lehigh University campus in Bethlehem, Pa., on Oct. 25, 2024. The legislation will affect higher education by reducing student grants and adjusting loan repayment plans and tax codes for institutions. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Spectrum

One section of the bill reinstates the Federal Communications Commission’s spectrum authority, a term that describes the agency’s ability to auction off specific radio frequencies to the private sector.

The authority expired in 2023 and, with limited direction from the Biden administration, became deadlocked in Congress.

The reauthorization of the program in the bill will generate $85 billion in revenues for the federal government over the next ten years, enables expansion of 5G and 6G mobile networks, and will allow for rural areas to receive radio communications that could be crucial during natural disasters in which they might not have access to TV.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act ends Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood for one year. Stripping federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which provides reproductive health services such as abortion, has been a longtime goal of conservatives.

A Planned Parenthood facility in Anaheim, Calif., on Sept. 10, 2020. The new legislation ends Medicaid funding for health care nonprofits that post more than $800,000 in profit in a year, including Planned Parenthood. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The legislation does not explicitly mention Planned Parenthood, but instead references abortion providers that are non-profits and received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023.

A federal judge has since put that aspect of the legislation on hold pending further litigation.

Obamacare Changes

The law also makes several substantial changes to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often known as “Obamacare.” The ACA Marketplace allows low-income Americans to buy discounted health insurance.

First, the legislation will require marketplace customers to re-enroll every year, much as some employees are required to reconfirm their chosen coverage for an employer-sponsored health insurance plan. During the re-enrollment process, customers will also have to re-verify their income.

It also shortens the open enrollment period—which was lengthened under Biden—by returning the period to the original Nov. 1 to Dec. 15 window.

Other provisions of the law exclude gender transition treatment from coverage, limit Marketplace tax credits to citizens and some lawful residents, and require enrollees to be current on their premium payments before re-enrolling for another year.

The changes will be implemented on a rolling basis, with some related to eligibility set to go into effect as early as December 2025.

A group of resident doctors talks with a senior doctor inside Brookdale University Hospital and Medical Center in the Brooklyn borough of New York City on July 1, 2025. Andres Kudacki/AP Photo

Expansion of Military Housing and Support Programs

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes a $9 billion expansion of programs surrounding housing, child care, and other benefits for members of the Armed Forces and their families.

That includes a $2.9 billion increase in the Basic Allowance for Housing and $590 million to help with temporary housing allowances for service members, to help with relocation.

It also includes more funding for the military health care system.

The expanded benefits could incentivize more people, especially with spouses and children, to join the armed services.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/12/2025 - 21:00

Visualizing Waymo's Rise In Ridership

As autonomous driving technology becomes more mainstream, Waymo - Alphabet’s self-driving ride-hailing division - is rapidly gaining traction across California.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Kayla Zhu, visualizes the number of monthly paid Waymo trips in California from August 2023 to March 2025, and a map of the cities that Waymo current operates in and plans to operate in.

Data comes from California Public Utilities Commission.

Californians Have Been Riding With Waymo More Frequently

Below, we show the number of monthly paid Waymo trips from August 2023 to March 2025.

Date Monthly paid Waymo trips Aug 2023 12,617 Sep 2023 38,473 Oct 2023 56,499 Nov 2023 56,905 Dec 2023 72,595 Jan 2024 77,242 Feb 2024 74,233 Mar 2024 83,851 Apr 2024 92,002 May 2024 143,621 Jun 2024 188,847 Jul 2024 250,752 Aug 2024 312,245 Sep 2024 354,124 Oct 2024 453,478 Nov 2024 503,634 Dec 2024 541,378 Jan 2025 550,457 Feb 2025 559,569 Mar 2025 708,180

The self-driving ride hailing service has over 700,000 recorded monthly paid trips as of March 2025, a 55-fold increase from August 2023.

In April 2025, Alphabet reported that Waymo is serving 250,000 paid trips per week in the U.S., a fivefold increase from a year ago.

Waymo’s growth comes amid a broader acceleration in autonomous vehicle (AV) adoption. The AV market is projected to grow from $99.4 billion in 2025 to $285.1 billion by 2029, according to Research and Markets.

Driverless ride-hailing services are gaining traction in urban centers, supported by regulatory progress, increased consumer trust, and advancements in AI and sensor technology.

As AV infrastructure improves and competition heats up from other players like Amazon’s Zoox and Tesla’s FSD, Waymo’s expanding footprint reflects the growing presence of robotaxis in urban mobility.

Waymo is currently available in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Austin. The company plans to continue to expand into other U.S. cities, as well as Tokyo, in the future.

To learn more about the autonomous vehicle industry, check out this graphic visualizing which companies are permitted to test fully-autonomous cars in California as of July 2024.

Tyler Durden Sat, 07/12/2025 - 20:25