Zerohedge

"Let The Oil Flow": Trump Declares Iran Peace Deal Complete As Pakistan PM Confirms Signing Ceremony Next Friday Summary Pakistan PM Confirms Peace Deal, with a signing event in Switzerland next Friday Trump Confirms US-Iran Peace Deal "Now Complete" and says "Let The Oil Flow"  Iran's president issues pro-MoU signing statement as Tehran is boasting of great and solid results for its side. There are reports this includes a significant release of billions in its frozen assets in the West. White House still suggesting an electronic MoU deal to be signed with Iran on Sunday, which leaves nuclear negotiations to further date, only with commitment that Iran not pursue a nuke. Trump: new strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs "should not have happened" and given it was on "a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran. "A draft of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding included diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran & the release of $25b of Iran’s frozen assets" (Reuters). Iranian statements characteristically cautious: Fars News Agency reported earlier that Iran has not made a final call on a potential MOU with the U.S. Iranian authorities are still reviewing the political, legal, and technical details. Polymarket //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026? Yes 39% · No 62%View full market & trade on Polymarket *  *  * Deal Confirmed By Trump, Pakistan PM, Just Ahead Of NY Futures Opening Just 30 minutes before futures open in New York, President Trump announced on Truth Social that a "Deal" with Iran is now complete. "Congratulations to all! I hereby fully authorize the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!" Trump said. Pakistan's prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, also confirmed: "that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED." Sharif said, "The official signing ceremony will be on Friday, 19 June in Switzerland." Following intensive talks, we are pleased to announce that the Peace Deal between the United States of America and Islamic Republic of Iran has been REACHED. Both sides have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in… — Shehbaz Sharif (@CMShehbaz) June 14, 2026 Israeli journalist and Iran affairs correspondent/analyst for Israel's Channel 14 reports that hardliners in Iran, including IRGC forces, will not derail the peace deal. BREAKING | IRGC Commander Ahmad Vahidi Will Not Block the Deal • According to my sources, IRGC Commander Ahmad Vahidi has agreed not to stand in the way of a deal, despite not supporting it • The IRGC sees strategic value in a ceasefire: sanctions relief, increased oil and… pic.twitter.com/kqM7jj0CMd — דרור בלאזאדה | Dror Balazada (@DBalazada) June 14, 2026 With futures in New York set to open momentarily, and with Brent and WTI contracts likely to panic-dump while S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures catch a bid, crypto is soaring to the moon. S&P500 Futs up about 1% WTI Futs tumbling to $81 a barrel level. Earlier, Jefferies analyst David Zervos noted, "I remain hopeful on the Iran front and, when we see resolution, that oil will drop below $60 and we go back to pricing in cuts, with Fed balance sheet reduction in the spotlight. I am confident we will be bouncing around with 8 handles on SPOOs, and eying 9s in '27/'28." Iran's President Pezeshkian Cites Solid Results For Iran As MoU Signing Could Be Just Hours Away: Rare Optimism From Both Sides It seems like a deal will really happen this time... finally... given Tehran is boasting of great and solid results for its side. There are reports this includes a significant release of billions in its frozen assets in the West. via Fars News: Recent diplomatic efforts have yielded positive results. Recent developments have shown that no country cares more about Iran's interests than ourselves Even if my personal opinion differs, I consider myself obliged to follow the final decision of the system Resolution of the Supreme National Security Council is the basis of action, and whatever is approved and deemed appropriate by the Supreme Leader will be mandatory for all of us. I regret the neighboring countries being exposed to the consequences of military actions. Our operation targeted the US bases on the soil of these countries. Issues and misunderstandings with Gulf countries are being resolved Ties with Gulf region countries are on path to improvement. Talks do not mean abandoning principles. Iran won't bow to any kind of bullying or illegal pressure. Media reports on war, negotiations do not necessarily reflect Supreme National Security Council views. Fox News, citing President Trump, says deal could be signed in Next 2-3 Hours: Spoke with President Trump. He says the deal with Iran is expected to be signed in the next 2-3 hours. President Trump said he asked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu “what the fu*k are you doing?” on a call after the Israeli strikes against Beirut. He told Netanyahu not to… — Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2026 Israeli Strike on Beirut Once Again Threatens MoU Signing: Trump says "Let's Not Blow It" President Trump on Truth Social has sought to brush back the Israeli Sunday strikes on Beirut's southern suburbs, saying this morning's attack "should not have happened" and given it was on "a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran. He emphasized, "We are very close to a Deal that will bring peace to the region, including to Lebanon, and all sides should stand down." He warned not just Israel against more attacks, but said Hezbollah must refrain, after the Iran-aligned Shia group sent more projectiles on northern Israel. "This could be the beginning of a long and beautiful peace" he said, and added "let's not blow it." Lebanon's civil defense agency has indicated that the new attacks on Beirut's southern suburbs killed at least three people. "The bodies of three martyrs were recovered from under the rubble and six wounded," the agency announced in a statement. Iran Weighs In on Anticipated MoU Signing Details, Potential Unresolved Issues Bloomberg and Reuters are reporting Sunday some fresh details on Iran's version of what the MoU to be signed - which President Trump says will happen today (albeit remotely) will inlcude. "A draft of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding included diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran and the release of $25b of Iran’s frozen assets, Reuters reports citing a senior Iran official it didn’t identify," writes Bloomberg in the latest. This includes: Final deal to be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides Also includes Iran immediately reopening Hormuz Strait to all commercial vessels and US lifting its naval blockade Tehran in draft agrees ⁠that will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons To maintain the nuclear status quo until final deal is ⁠reached, including by not enriching uranium and not expanding nuclear facilities One potential major complication to the two sides actually signing is what's happening in the Beirut suburbs, which the Israeli Air Force has just struck for the first time in about a week: Israel has struck a building in Beirut’s southern suburbs in response to Hezbollah attacks on northern Israel, marking the first such strike since last Sunday. pic.twitter.com/VYv3mGFrF9 — Faytuks Network (@FaytuksNetwork) June 14, 2026 Provocative Israeli military actions previously effectively torpedoed prior Washington-Tehran attempts to get back to the negotiating table. Will the same hold-up happen again? Pro-Israel supporters and lobbyists in the US have been raging against what they see as a 'failure' of a deal, and 'capitulation' to Iran on kicking the can on the nuclear issue... not least among them is on display in the following: Has to be about releasing the $20-24 billion in frozen assets to Iran, the most immediately damaging concession for Trump. I took a plunge into Mark Levin's show--the squealing about Trump selling out Israel for Iran is rather enjoyable ngl.https://t.co/hf27AJiGuL — Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) June 13, 2026 The usual caveats which proved all prior 'deal imminent' headlines to be premature and wishful thinking still apply. Some latest from Iranian state media according to Al Jazeera: Iran’s Fars news agency, citing a source close to the negotiating team, is reporting that Iranian officials were discussing the ceasefire points with the Qatari mediators in Tehran. The report added that the deal is yet to be finalised and “no agreement will definitely be signed at the time Trump announced”. The comments were made to the agency prior to Israel’s deadly attacks on Lebanon’s southern suburbs today. Sunday Iran Deal (or rather: MoU Remote Signing) Expected Sunday, per Trump President Trump said Saturday that an interim U.S.-Iran deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and wind down the four-month conflict could be signed as soon as Sunday. However, Tehran has pushed back on that timeline, signaling that no final decision has been made while Iranian officials continue to review the terms of a potential memorandum of understanding. "The Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow, and immediately after it is signed, the Hormuz Strait is OPEN TO ALL," Trump said in a Truth Social post on Saturday, while claiming that Iran "no longer wants a Nuclear weapon." The president continued, "At the appropriate time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust, buried deep under the powerful sunken granite mountains, thanks to our beautiful B-2 Bombers and their brilliant pilots, and downblend and destroy it, whether in Iran, or the United States." Pakistan and Qatar are mediating, with technical talks expected to follow any signing and last up to 60 days. The MOU is structured as a step-by-step framework, meaning the Hormuz maritime chokepoint will reopen first, followed by economic rewards for Iran as conditions are met. Pakistan's Sharif Says Deal Imminent; Iran's Statements More Cautious Pakistan, which has served as one of the mediators, is preparing to sign the peace deal electronically, followed by technical-level talks next week, according to Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif. He said those talks would last two months and focus on Iran's nuclear program. Meanwhile, the Iranian media outlet Fars News Agency reported earlier that Iran has not made a final call on a potential MOU with the U.S. Iranian authorities are still reviewing the political, legal, and technical details, with no final decision announced as of Sunday morning. The urgency behind securing an MOU to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint is clear: the world is drifting dangerously close toward an energy cliff. Strategic petroleum reserves are being drawn down rapidly around the world to offset the loss of Gulf production, while China's weakening fuel demand is helping to offset some of the broader supply shock. Related: • What If The Strait Of Hormuz Never Fully Reopens Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi made clear Friday that Iran understands that terms related to its nuclear program will be finalized within 60 days of the initial agreement being signed. So in essence, this means Iran could get its wish of pushing nuclear negotiations back, only after the hot conflict has clearly ended. Iran has long sought to separate the issues of a final end to the war from consideration of its nuclear program. Energy markets priced in de-escalation last week, with Brent crude futures sliding as much as  5.1% Friday and European gas dropped as much as 8.4% after Trump canceled planned new strikes on Iran. IG's weekend markets are pricing in a 50 bps decline in Brent crude when futures open on Sunday evening. But throughput traffic through the Hormuz chokepoint remains far below pre-war levels, and a vessel was struck off Oman on Saturday. Normalization could take weeks, if not many months. Bloomberg noted, "Roughly 140 ships passed through the narrow chokepoint each day before the conflict erupted." Here are the latest overnight headlines (courtesy of Bloomberg): US-Iran Deal Progress • Trump said on Saturday that a deal with Iran is scheduled to be signed on Sunday, claiming the Hormuz Strait will open immediately after signing and that Iran no longer wants nuclear weapons • Iran contradicted Trump's timeline, saying it is still reviewing the text and hasn't announced a final decision, with authorities conducting a detailed assessment of political, legal, and technical dimensions • Pakistan said on Saturday that an interim deal could be finalized within 24 hours and is preparing for electronic signing immediately after, followed by technical level talks next week • A senior US official said on Friday there was an 80% or 85% chance an agreement gets signed soon, though some Iranian hardliners still want to kill any breakthrough Draft Deal Terms • According to a senior Iran official, the draft memorandum includes diluting highly enriched uranium within Iran and the release of $25 billion of Iran's frozen assets • The draft includes Iran immediately reopening the Hormuz Strait to all commercial vessels and the US lifting its naval blockade • Tehran agrees in the draft that it will neither produce nor acquire nuclear weapons • The draft includes a US oil sanctions waiver for Iran • The final deal will be discussed in the 60 days following agreement by the two sides • A central element is a step-by-step approach with the Strait of Hormuz reopened followed by Tehran getting economic rewards each time it meets US demands Regional Tensions • The Israeli military announced on Sunday it launched strikes on Beirut targeting Hezbollah infrastructure, with Netanyahu's office saying the strikes were in response to Hezbollah attacks in northern Israel • When Israel last struck the Beirut suburbs a week ago, Iran responded with attacks • US Central Command said on Saturday it shot down Iranian drones near the Strait of Hormuz • Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke with India's External Affairs Minister on Saturday after US strikes left three Indian mariners dead, stressing that all commercial vessels should immediately comply with orders from US forces Nuclear Program Developments • According to five sources familiar with US intelligence, Iran has sealed off its cache of near-bomb grade uranium and placed explosive mines near entrances to the site in recent weeks, making attempts to remove the uranium far riskier Financial Arrangements • The UAE has agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Iran, with four sources telling Reuters the total was $10 billion, more than $3 billion of which had already been delivered, though two other sources put the total at $20 billion • The UAE denied reports on the Iran funds transfer, specifically denying allegations concerning $3 billion Diplomatic Activity • Trump will meet with leaders of France, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt and India at the G7 summit in France, underscoring the outsized role the war in Iran continues to play Khamenei Burial Plans • Ali Khamenei, Iran's former supreme leader killed in US-Israeli air strikes on February 28, is set to be buried at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad on July 9, with public funeral ceremonies in Tehran and Qom in preceding days Saturday's Iran Wrap • President Trump Says Iran Peace Deal To Be Signed Sunday, Will Open Strait To All Polymarket //--> //--> Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by July 15? Yes 43% · No 57%View full market & trade on Polymarket //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by August 31, 2026? Yes 69% · No 32%View full market & trade on Polymarket"Any deal that kicks the can down the road on the most critical issues and is conditions-based would put the US and Iran exactly where they've been: a fragile ceasefire in name only that is routinely tested and prone to violence," said Becca Wasser, defense lead for Bloomberg Economics. One can only hope that an MOU, and eventually a credible path toward a real peace deal, is something Tehran actually follows. What was initially sold as a quick war by the Trump administration has now dragged on into its fourth month. Early in the conflict, the administration's view was that the Hormuz chokepoint would not be sealed shut, yet that is exactly what happened. Since then, the conflict has turned into a giant game of Shahed drone whack-a-mole with the Iranians. The Trump team needs this conflict resolved quickly, not only to prevent another wave of inflationary pressure in energy markets and avert the world from sliding into an energy cliff, but also to repair the political optics ahead of the midterms. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 17:49

Anthropic Rushes Staff To D.C. After A National-Security Order Yanked Fable In Three Days Senior Anthropic technical staff have been dispatched to Washington DC, after a Friday night government demand to implement sweeping export controls resulted in the company yanking its two most capable models Friday night after only a few days of public release - Mythos and Fable (Fable being Mythos with guardrails) - over the alleged ability to 'jailbreak' the latter. As of Sunday the models are still down, no restoration date has been set, but sources on both sides told Axios they are eager to resolve it. That said, the two parties best positioned to explain what happened are telling different stories as to how this happened.  Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei The order is narrow on paper and sweeping in effect. It prohibits access by "any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees." Anthropic has no reliable way to verify a user's citizenship at the moment they send an API request or open a chat window, and its own staff, customers, and cloud partners are spread across dozens of countries. The company concluded it could not selectively block foreign nationals, so it blocked everyone. Anthropic's other models, including Opus 4.8, Sonnet, and Haiku, are untouched and still running. The US government, citing national security authorities, has issued an export control directive to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States, including foreign national Anthropic employees. The net effect of… — Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) June 13, 2026 What The Order Does, And Why It Went Global The directive came from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's office, and a U.S. official confirmed to Bloomberg that the department sent the letter. Curiously, the letter did not spell out the specific national-security concern behind it. The legal mechanism appears to be the "deemed export" rule, the decades-old principle that releasing controlled technology or source code to a foreign person counts as an export to that person's home country. Applying it to a deployed commercial frontier model is, by NBC's account, the first time a leading AI company has pulled a publicly deployed model offline because of federal intervention. What we do know about Lutnick's letter; it requires a license for the export, re-export, or domestic transfer of the two models and reaches any foreign person on U.S. soil. It does not, on its face, bar U.S. citizens or the U.S. government, and the cutoff for American users is a consequence of Anthropic's inability to filter rather than the order's intent. Government access is murkier still: CyberScoop reports the National Security Agency had been given Mythos 5 to conduct offensive cyber operations through Project Glasswing, and it remains unclear how the directive affects that program. Foreign vetted partners were clearly swept in, with the Korea Times reporting that Korean Glasswing members including the Korea Internet & Security Agency, SK Telecom, and Samsung lost their access. In other words, the order disconnected allied security partners abroad while a U.S. agency's separate channel to the more powerful sibling model appears, on the order's logic, to sit outside its reach. Confirmed cut offs: Private/commercial users. Fable's public, API, and enterprise users, plus the private-sector Glasswing partners (the vetted cyber firms) who had Mythos. Foreign government and intergovernmental partners. The Korea Times reports Korean Glasswing members (the Korea Internet & Security Agency, SK Telecom, Samsung) lost access, and Security Affairs reports European Glasswing partners including NATO and ENISA (the EU's cybersecurity agency) were cut off with no notice. Those are foreign nationals under the order, so the order reaches them directly. The reach inside the United States is the most unusual part, and it produced an awkward result for Anthropic; their own employees can't use Mythos or Fable now. Any non-citizen querying Fable from, say, an apartment in San Francisco is barred exactly as if they were in Shanghai - and that population includes a meaningful share of Anthropic's own workforce, since frontier labs run heavily on foreign-born engineers. The company effectively had to lock some of its own staff out of the model it had just shipped. Dean Ball, an AI policy expert who briefly served in the current administration and has been sharply critical of its moves against the company, called the action "cartoonish" on X, pointing to the incoherence of an administration that wants to export advanced AI chips to China while moving to bar allied users, from Britain on down, from the best American models. Tinfoil, anyone? The national security order might be a godsend for Anthropic - which priced Fable at ten dollars per million input tokens and fifty per million output, double its Opus 4.8 flagship and, by its own description, less than half the price of Mythos Preview - the most expensive model it sells and a token-hungry one on long tasks. It was free on Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans only from June 9 through June 22, with metered credits taking over after, and Anthropic was candid the staged rollout was about capacity, expecting demand "very high, and difficult to predict." So this shutdown, triggered by Amazon (read below), and landing three days into a two-week giveaway conveniently capped an expensive subsidy that after we're guessing most users switched to the thirsty model. How Three Days Unspooled Fable 5 launched on June 9 as the first broadly available "Mythos-class" model, the public-facing version of a system Anthropic had previously kept behind a vetted-access wall because of its cyber and biological capabilities. Mythos 5, the same underlying model with some safeguards removed, stayed reserved for cleared cybersecurity partners. Fable 5 was the middle path: Mythos-grade capability, Anthropic said, with guardrails strong enough for general release. The company put it on the API, made it generally available on Amazon Bedrock and GitHub Copilot, and folded it into Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans at no extra charge through June 22. The imminent “Anthropic - White House” ceasefire is the new imminent “Iran-US” ceasefire https://t.co/byCO9mLo2h — zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 14, 2026 The launch was rocky before Washington entered. Researchers complained the safeguards were overbroad and that ordinary technical work was being downgraded. A sharper backlash hit over what users called a "silent fallback," a mechanism that quietly rerouted certain high-risk queries to the older Opus 4.8 without telling the user. Anthropic reversed it, apologized, and said flagged requests would be made visible. Then, on June 10, a well-known jailbreaker who posts as Pliny the Liberator published what he claimed was a working bypass of Fable's safety systems, complete with lurid outputs spanning cyber exploits and chemical synthesis. It gave the controversy a public face, though it is worth noting it was not the finding the government ultimately cited. Anthropic has never confirmed which jailbreak triggered the order, the viral Pliny post or the private report described below. 🚨 JAILBREAK ALERT 🚨 ANTHROPIC: PWNED 🫡 FABLE-5: LIBERATED 🦋 let's start with the 🐘... the consensus seems to be that this has been one of the most disappointing model drops of all time, effectively preventing legitimate researchers from contributing their talents to our… pic.twitter.com/Z0vdPIt4vY — Pliny the Liberator 🐉󠅫󠄼󠄿󠅆󠄵󠄐󠅀󠄼󠄹󠄾󠅉󠅭 (@elder_plinius) June 10, 2026 Anthropic says it received a Friday evening call giving it roughly ninety minutes to take the models down over a national-security threat, with no specifics attached. The Lutnick letter followed that afternoon. By late evening, users had lost access, and Anthropic posted its statement calling the situation a misunderstanding. The next day, David Sacks and Pete Hegseth offered the administration's version in public. As of this writing, the models are still offline. The Trigger Was Amazon The finding that set this off appears to have come not from an anonymous internet jailbreak but from Amazon, which is to say from Anthropic's single largest investor. According to the Wall Street Journal, corroborated by The Information and Reuters, Amazon researchers found a way to prompt Fable 5 into surfacing information useful for cyberattacks, and Amazon chief executive Andy Jassy raised the concern directly with senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. The company's report reportedly showed Fable surfacing security bugs in at least four software programs when fed a specific set of queries, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross and Lutnick were both in the conversations. Sacks, in his thread, described the source only as a "highly credible trusted partner." Amazon has declined to detail the research, telling reporters it is "not uncommon for governments to seek our counsel" on security risks and that it does not discuss the substance of those talks. AWS, which hosted Fable 5 through Bedrock, later confirmed Anthropic had asked it to revoke access for all users in all regions. Amazon was not alone in raising flags, either: at least five other companies submitted warnings in the same window. What's interesting is that Amazon is Anthropic's largest backer - with a cumulative stake of roughly $13 billion and a $100 billion AWS spending commitment running the other way, plus a board seat, the cloud that serves the models, and a Trainium chip relationship. One of the companies most thoroughly entangled with Anthropic's business helped prompt a government action that knocked Anthropic's flagship launch offline eleven days after the company filed confidentially for an IPO. There may be an entirely straightforward explanation, that Amazon spotted a real risk and escalated it through the proper channel. Was Amazon concerned about being legally responsible for jailbroken Fable hackings?  By Anthropic's account, the government supplied only verbal evidence of a narrow, non-universal bypass that amounted to asking the model to read a codebase and flag software bugs - with the same result obtainable from other public models including OpenAI's GPT-5.5. The company argues a narrow jailbreak cannot justify "recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people," and that applying that standard industry-wide would "halt all new model deployments." It is a first-party account from a company that wants its product back online, but it is the more detailed of the two, and Anthropic notes that thousands of hours of pre-launch red-teaming by the U.S. government, the U.K. AI Security Institute, and outside groups found no universal jailbreak. It is also corroborated by the only named expert who has read the underlying report. Katie Moussouris, the Luta Security chief executive who built Microsoft's bug-bounty program and helped design the Pentagon's first, reviewed the Amazon findings at Anthropic's request and told the Journal and Fortune it was "not a jailbreak" but "Defense Oriented Prompting (DOP), capabilities defenders need," adding that if national defense was the goal the response "just scored an own goal against us." Chris McGuire of the Council on Foreign Relations, no reflexive critic, called the across-the-board restriction "highly questionable." The administration's case runs the other way, and it runs on Anthropic's own rhetoric. Sacks, who co-chairs the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and previously served as the White House AI and crypto czar, says a trusted partner found a working jailbreak and that the administration asked CEO Dario Amodei to fix it or pull the model. "Dario allegedly refused." Sacks points out that Anthropic spent months calling Mythos-class models a more dangerous category needing oversight; Fable is Mythos with guardrails - so a bypass exposes "operability of a cyber weapon" to people who should not have it. His bottom line: "the ball is in Anthropic's court." I’ve had a number of conversations with folks inside and outside government about the current situation with Anthropic, and here is what I believe to be true: — As we know, Anthropic publicly released its Mythos class models earlier this week under the commercial name Fable.… — David Sacks (@DavidSacks) June 13, 2026 Meanwhile, a more alarming claim, that the trigger involved access from China, rests on a single Semafor source and is disputed by Anthropic, which says the issue was never raised and that it blocks access from inside China. Treasury, Commerce, and the Bureau of Industry and Security have not put a technical case on the record. Anthropic wants its model live and its safety brand intact; the White House wants to look alert rather than asleep as AI starts touching cyber operations. Nobody has shown the proof. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth posted a "Told ya so" - writing "Three months ago, @DeptofWar kicked @AnthropicAI out of our building—forever ... Every passing day proves why that was the right move."  Three months ago, @DeptofWar kicked @AnthropicAI out of our building—forever. Every passing day proves why that was the right move. 🇺🇸 — Pete Hegseth (@PeteHegseth) June 13, 2026 Sacks has explicitly denied the Fable action is retaliation, and there is no public evidence that it is. But the prior friction is real, and the administration's own messaging keeps blurring the line between a technical enforcement action and a broader fight over who sets the terms for AI in national security. Precedent-Setting For the rest of the industry, the precedent is the point: a frontier model can be launched, praised, and pulled from global availability inside a week, by emergency directive, for reasons its provider cannot fully see. Reporting suggests the administration is treating this as Anthropic-specific for now, but even a one-company action pushes every lab toward pre-clearing high-capability releases. That direction is not hypothetical; Trump signed an executive order this month directing agencies to establish a voluntary mechanism for the government to get early access to powerful models before deployment. The Fable order is what the involuntary version looks like. Enterprises are reading it as a resilience warning, with analysts urging multi-provider routing, local fallback, and a harder look at open-weight models - exactly the immunity Chinese open-source labs are now marketing. For U.S. allies the lesson is sharper, because the order cut off allied users too, sweeping European, Canadian, and Indian customers into the same blackout. The European Commission said emergency measures should not discriminate against partners; French officials reached for the language of technological sovereignty. The subtext, that AI infrastructure controlled in Washington can be switched off in Washington, is now being said aloud. Then there's the paradox Anthropic helped build - long arguing that governments should be able to block unsafe deployments, distinguishing itself from rivals who oppose binding rules. This is what that looks like when the process is not the "transparent, fair, clear, and grounded in technical facts" one it envisioned but an emergency directive with no public record. Its objection is not that no model should ever be stopped, but that this is the wrong way to stop one - a harder argument for a company that spent years naming the danger and marketing the restraint. The imminent “Anthropic - White House” ceasefire is the new imminent “Iran-US” ceasefire https://t.co/byCO9mLo2h — zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 14, 2026   Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 16:55

"Greatest Show On Earth": White House Hosts UFC Freedom 250 Fights America’s semiquincentennial birthday celebration kicks into gear today with the Ultimate Fighting Championship’s (UFC) Freedom 250 fights, with seven matches scheduled for the South Lawn of the White House. “This will be the greatest show on earth,” President Donald Trump said while previewing the stage in May. “I think it’s going to be the biggest event we’ve ever had at the White House.” As Travis Gillmore reports for The Epoch Times, the spectacle falls on Flag Day as well as Trump’s 80th birthday. Organizers constructed a 60-foot-tall structure known as the “claw,” with matches occurring in the sport’s familiar, octagon-shaped arena on the front yard of the Executive Mansion. The main event, a lightweight title unification bout, features undefeated UFC lightweight title holder Ilia “El Matador” Topuria, 29, facing off against 37-year-old interim lightweight champion Justin “The Highlight” Gaethje, both weighing in at 155 pounds. Topuria, known for elite techniques and knockout strength, is heavily favored, though the U.S.-born Gaethje is a mainstay in the sport, with high-level fighting intelligence and durability. Second on the card, listed as a co-main event, is an interim heavyweight bout between 251-pound Alex Pereira, 38, and 248-pound Ciryl Gane, 36. Known as “Poatan,” Pereira is looking to become the sport’s first three-division champion, having previously captured the middleweight and light heavyweight titles. Media preview of the UFC setup of the upcoming UFC Freedom Fight on June 14, on the South Lawn of the White House on June 11, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times France’s Gane, nicknamed “Bon Gamin,” a former interim champion, is quick on his feet and known for his range. The match is evenly stacked, according to oddsmakers. Winners of the title bouts will receive red, white, and blue patriotic-themed belts, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House. Fan favorite “Suga” Sean O’Malley is expected to bring his trademark personality to the ring when he takes on Aiemann Zahabi for the bantamweight match, with both fighters coming within a half-pound of each other at weigh-in. O’Malley’s quick striking gives him the edge, while Zahabi comes into the match with a seven-fight win streak. An undefeated new prospect weighing 231 pounds, Josh Hokit, with nine straight victories, will challenge 265-pound Derrick “The Black Beast” Lewis in the night’s heavyweight fight. Hokit brings youthful energy to the ring, while Lewis is known as an elite, lights-out puncher. Brazilian lightweight Mauricio Ruffy takes on veteran Michael Chandler in a bout where Ruffy is favored, but Chandler’s wrestling skills and bursts of energy will be on display. Bo Nickal is expected to prevail over Kyle Daukaus in a middleweight battle between the two 186-pounders, while a featherweight match between Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia is set to open the night. UFC organizers hosted a ceremonial weigh-in Saturday in Washington in preparation for the mixed martial arts fights. Dana White, UFC president and CEO, oversaw the programming, while podcaster and long-time UFC commentator Joe Rogan emceed the event. White hoisted one of the red, white, and blue patriotic themed belts created for the two title fights, adorned with “1776–2026,” 250 stars, approximately 60 carats of diamonds, and an engraving of the scene at the White House. Thousands of fans crowded the Ellipse near the Executive Mansion to witness the festivities. Military skydivers performed aerial stunts to kick iff the evening, flying a huge American flag down to the crowd before a bald eagle soared over the audience. The 14 fighters were officially weighed in earlier in the morning, and all the competitors made their respective weight to qualify for the seven-match card. UFC lightweight champion Ilia Topuria and interim lightweight champion Justin Gaethje both came in at 155 pounds ahead of their fight in the main event on Sunday, a lightweight title unification match. The co-main event, an interim heavyweight title bout, will feature 251-pound Alex Pereira against 248-pound Ciryl Gane. Sean O’Malley weighed in at 135.5 pounds, and Aiemann Zahabi came in at 135 pounds ahead of their bantamweight match. Heavyweights Josh Hokit and Derrick Lewis will fight at 231 pounds and 265 pounds, respectively. Mauricio Ruffy weighed 155 pounds, and Michael Chandler totaled 156 pounds, before the two go head-to-head in a lightweight match. Middleweights Bo Nickal and Kyle Daukaus will fight at 186 pounds apiece, while featherweights Diego Lopes and Steve Garcia both weighed in at 146 pounds. Tensions ran high as the athletes faced off in front of the crowd. Similar antics were on display June 12 during the pre-fight press conference at the Lincoln Memorial. Thousands of military members and special guests will sit ringside, while the Ellipse near the White House is set up to hold an overflow crowd of approximately 100,000. Gates open at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday for the main event and Fan Fest watch party, which includes a replica octagon, interactive entertainment, live music, merchandise booths, live shows and appearances, meet-and-greets with UFC athletes, fireworks, and more. The Zac Brown Band headlined Saturday night, with more musical acts featured along with motocross stunts by Travis Pastrana. Officials with the UFC promoted the fights as the “most historic sporting event of all time,” with festivities coinciding with the nation’s founders signing the Declaration of Independence. “UFC Freedom 250 commemorates the 250th birthday of the United States with a once-in-a-generation celebration of the American fighting spirit,” the organization said in a statement. “From the revolution to the octagon, this historic event will connect fans through cinematic storytelling and unrivaled competition on the world’s greatest proving ground.” People around the world can watch the fights live on Paramount+ beginning at 8 p.m. ET. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 15:45

Space: The Now Frontier And The AI Revolution By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities Space: The Now Frontier & The AI Revolution Academy will tackle any details on a deal with Iran via a SITREP and a podcast, once (if) details are made  available.  After last Friday’s extreme move (More Than Rates Moving Markets) we had a relatively tame week with the S&P and Nasdaq both gaining around 0.7%, but neither getting back to their highs of the week, set on Tuesday. Yields drifted moderately lower on the week, primarily on the back of steep declines in the price of oil (though I do feel the need to point out the Jan 2027 WTI contract, which I’ve been focusing on, is still at $76.1, barely one dollar lower than where it closed last Friday – I remain in the higher for longer camp). Credit spreads remain firm and the asset class remains “boring” which is a good thing!  Now let’s address two bigger picture issues that have been taking up a lot of time during recent client calls and visits. Space and AI.  Space: The Now Frontier  Space: The Final Frontier still gives me the chills! The excitement of exploration! The IPO of SpaceX and all the discussion it has created has brought back that feeling.  A colony of 1 million people on Mars! I love the concept! I have 0 opinion on whether the number of shares that Musk gets for achieving that target is the right number, but I love having that concept out there.  Think big:! This concept floating around, and now documented into Wall Street, excites me. On the back of Artemis II and the planned lunar landings, there is a lot of potential for new discoveries.  On a more practical (or near-term outlook) it can lead to AI and Data Centers in space. New sources of energy and potentially other materials.  But there are also important National Security elements that are gaining more attention.  Many members of Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group lament that we have been “soft” on space. That we have ignored the real dangers to national security by not focusing on space as much as we need to. While the Space Force was a step in the right direction, many argue that we are behind (some might argue woefully behind) where we should be in terms of ensuring that space is safe and our interests are protected!  At the simple and on the not controversial end of the spectrum, is “space junk.” The debris in orbit is increasing. While not currently posing a risk, it is something that should be addressed better than it has been.  What about GPS and communications? I’m not sure that I could walk to the corner store without using some map app. The working assumption that “no one is interested in disrupting GPS” may be naïve? While at least 95% of communication remains “terrestrial” (fiber optic cables, undersea cables, cell towers, etc.) space will become increasingly important to communications. While it might not be “mission critical” to protect the communications equipment in space today, it could be. Who will control discoveries?  Let’s say we find some vital resources on the moon (seems the most likely “surprise” that could occur in the near future). Who will control that material?  At best, the discoverer and those with the capabilities to take advantage of such material.   At worst, might is right.  We expect this administration, and future administrations, will spend more on space to support National Security. This is a bipartisan issue as we think about the myriad of possibilities for space. Not just the good and altruistic possibilities, but also about the risk that some other country doesn’t share such a cooperative spirit about the future of space.  This is by no means, “closing the barn door after the horses have run out,” but it is something that deserves more serious attention and money going forward.   The national security elements are in addition to the commercial opportunities that will be funded as corporations rush to harness the potential!  If waking up to a $2.1 trillion market cap (and the first trillionaire) doesn’t motivate entrepreneurial and capitalistic spirits, then I should just give up this job, because it would go against everything I understand about capitalism!  Space may be the “final frontier” but it is also the “now” frontier, which is incredibly exciting!  The AI Revolution  Let’s get the hard part over, and start with this image:  This image is meant to grab your attention, if not create some shock value. Yes, I used AI (ChatGPT in this case) to create an image of modern-day workers storming a data center like villagers in the old days. It isn’t perfect, but it is about a zillion times better than I could do on my own.  My current thinking on AI:  It is crucial to have the lead in this technology from a National Security standpoint. Maybe I’m falling into a trap where everything looks like a nail, when you only have a hammer, as I spend so much time with the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, but I do believe that the AI Race and the Data Race are real and it is crucial to stay ahead in these races. I cannot tell whether it is one race or two races that are similar, but that doesn’t really make a difference, so we will ignore that technicality for now.  We are all trying to implement AI into our routines, with varying amounts of success.  “Traditional” search (if you can call something that didn’t exist when I was born, “traditional”) has been almost fully taken over by AI. No longer are we just getting pointed to links and websites as search results. We now get the answers we presumably would have gotten by going to those links up front.  Sometimes we are “shocked” by the results of AI.  Sometimes those “shocks” are good – like the image delivered above.  Sometimes those “shocks” raise eyebrows – like how could it make up a ticker?  Or not find the current version of what we were trying to solve. Ending up in a level of frustration over the need to correct some “slop” after spending money to generate that “slop” in the first place. At the back of your mind, you cannot help but wonder what you might have missed, in prior instances of using AI. I think a lot about the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect (the ad that popped up for me on this link was for ShipSticks - got to give the ad agencies some credit for that).  We have moved beyond “generic” questions about AI and into wanting real world examples and case studies.  We are in the phase of trying to figure out “if it is worth it.” Not just figuring out how much time we saved (after applying our own touches) but we are also considering what we didn’t learn by going down the AI path.  With the prices rising for usage, it is becoming easier to think about AI in a “traditional” cost versus benefit framework. Presumably (based on market valuations), AI is going to look very cheap.  If my current thinking is generally positive on AI and I truly believe it is crucial for security, then why show a picture depicting the AI Revolution as people storming a data center?  Anthropic Disables Mythos 5 and Fable 5. This was done to comply with the U.S. government’s demands. National Security front and center. I will admit, there is a part of me that thinks this might be the best “velvet rope” marketing campaign ever. It is so powerful that you can’t use it, just makes people want to use it. But it is only a part of me that thinks that. The larger and less juvenile side of me thinks there are real security risks being unleashed. It is difficult to undo discoveries. Now that everyone knows that this sort of AI has been developed, people will try to replicate it. How long before someone else has this tech and uses it against us (or you or me). We are going to have to ramp up our National Security Policy around data, chips, and AI at lightning speed!  There will be (and there already is) an element of I Told You So. Those who don’t want AI to succeed will use this to try to slow the development of AI. Again, just because we slow down and add stricter guardrails doesn’t mean those who want to do us harm would follow suit (they wouldn’t, they would just smile at the opportunity being given to them).  Remember the “viral” report on potential job losses from AI? Wall Street may have moved on, but not everyone in the country has forgotten about the fear it stoked in them (primarily around their own jobs and careers). While our Are We The Horses? in the buggy whip story hasn’t gone viral, it has gotten some attention. Lisa Abramowicz asked me about it during my interview last week and has mentioned it several times. I recently came across another report also asking those questions. Fear of job loss is real.  Add in robotics, and job loss fears mount even higher. Electricity costs. People don’t love the looks of data centers (one friend pointed out recently, that while driving at 79 mph, it took 3 minutes to drive by a data center construction site). Water issues are there too, but for now it is the electricity consumption that bothers/scares people the most. Electricity CPI: new record high pic.twitter.com/EBFCAxDXk4 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 10, 2026 The biggest risk I see to the AI industry in the U.S. is that a political movement captures the angst surrounding the business and uses that sentiment to win elections and slow or even derail AI in the country.  We are not there yet, but the industry has to focus on heading this risk off at the pass.  We’ve seen a “softer” tone out of some AI executives, particularly trying to flip the narrative to job creation from AI rather than job losses.  The companies developing the AI and Data Centers are doing a much better job on the electricity side of things and will continue to do that.  While it is probably important to lobby in D.C., I think it is equally important (and possibly more important) to maintain/win in the court of public opinion.  My picture is unlikely to gain traction (no one uses torches anyways), but that sentiment is bubbling just below the surface and I think tackling it head on is one thing that AI needs to do. The national security focus helps, but is not in itself enough.  Bottom Line  I think I need to watch some Star Trek episodes on upcoming flights.I am very excited about space and think that sentiment is widely held. I am largely excited about AI but think there is a real risk of political backlash if the industry lets fears seep into the populace at large and some politicians harness that fear.  Hopefully, we have details on Iran and they are good and we can move on from that topic. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 14:00

Gonorrhea Rates Are Soaring In NYC: Mamdani Rushes Free Chocolate Condoms To Citizens Of Big Apple! Authored by Eric Utter via American Thinker, So what's the priority of New York City's Mamdani administration these days? FrontPage Magazine reported: Gonorrhea rates in New York City have more than doubled in a decade and syphilis is ‘surging’ statewide. Mamdani’s Department of Health has responded to this crisis by rushing a free supply of lubricant and chocolate flavored condoms. Beam me up, Scotty. FPM quoted NYC Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Helen Arteaga as stating, “Providing high-quality sexual and reproductive healthcare services is a priority for the Mamdani Administration. Making safer sex products more accessible to the most affected and vulnerable communities is a critical public health need.” Well, it’s good to have priorities. But are chocolate-flavored condoms safer than regular old garden-variety ones? I’m guessing not, but I couldn’t tell you from experience. FPM again: Councilwoman Pierina Sanchez, a Mamdani ally, explained that the free chocolate flavored condoms were necessary because "inequities persist among women, low-income households, and Black and Latino New Yorkers. Women, low-income households, and black and Latino New Yorkers are adversely and disproportionately affected by a relative dearth of chocolate-flavored condoms? Is New York a den of iniquity inequity? Unfortunately for virtue-signaling do-gooders, the free chocolaty condoms are coming from Karex, a Malaysian company that is apparently the largest manufacturer of condoms on Earth. Why is this unfortunate? According to The Telegraph, some Karex workers said they are put up in cramped and undignified conditions, with as many as a dozen housed in damp and unhygienic dormitories. Workers at one site are allegedly granted just half of a steel bunkbed, with no mattress — and only have access to a filthy, broken toilet. And for these “amenities,” about 12 dollars a month is deducted from their wages. The Telegraph reported that one Karex employee said “sometimes poisonous snakes come in” to the dorms. Not sure if that’s a blessing or a curse. “Forget the crime! Forget the fact that the city is broke! Chocolate condoms for everybody!” does not seem like a winning slogan for Mamdani … but what do I know? Ask not what you can do for the city, ask what Mayor Mamdani can do to — I mean for -- you!” I’m sure someone in the Mamdani administration will tout the mayor’s actions thusly: “These delectable prophylactics will be generously distributed, free of cost, to all genders with a penis … and to all those that love them! Mayor Mamdani is hard at work to make your lives better!” Considering the shape the city is in, this may be the biggest cover up in the history of the Big Apple. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 12:50

America's Energy Future Is Being Decided In Obscure Utility Commission Races Authored by Elizabeth Gianini via RealClearEnergy, Most Americans could not name a single member of their state Public Service or Utility Commission (PSC/PUC). Radical climate activists are counting on that. Across the country, radical climate activists and left-wing environmental organizations are pouring millions of dollars into obscure utility commission races because they understand something many voters do not: these commissions increasingly influence the future of America's electric grid. These regulatory bodies decide how electricity is generated, how transmission infrastructure is built, how quickly power plants retire, how new resources are integrated into the grid, and ultimately how much Americans pay for electricity and whether the lights stay on when the system is under stress. In Georgia, radical climate activists invested heavily in the 2025 PSC races, helping defeat Republican commissioners who supported an all-of-the-above energy strategy. In Arizona, activist-backed candidates won utility elections while advocating accelerated retirements of dispatchable generation. Similar efforts are already emerging in other states. These organizations understand that utility commissioners play a critical role in shaping energy infrastructure, reliability, and investment decisions within the legal and regulatory frameworks established by their states. As national energy debates have become increasingly difficult to win in Washington, radical left-wing environmental activists have turned their attention to state-level regulatory races where those decisions are often debated and implemented. What makes this debate so misleading is that activists frame it as a choice between renewable energy and the dispatchable generation still required to keep the grid reliable, affordable, and resilient. It is not. Most Republican PSC and PUC commissioners support an all-of-the-above energy strategy. They recognize that meeting America's growing energy needs while maintaining reliability and resilience will require contributions from virtually every available energy source. What they reject is the fantasy that America can rapidly phase out dispatchable generation before replacement technologies are capable of providing the same level of reliability, resilience, and affordability. Many radical climate activists have shifted their messaging from climate targets to affordability. Affordable electricity means very little if policymakers sacrifice reliability in pursuit of political timelines. No major industrial economy has demonstrated that a heavily renewable-dependent electric system can operate at scale with consistent reliability and affordable consumer costs without substantial dispatchable backup generation. At the same time, electricity demand is surging. Artificial intelligence, data centers, domestic manufacturing, and electrification are creating the largest increase in power demand America has seen in decades. The Trump Administration's Ratepayer Protection Pledge reflects a simple principle: large AI and data-center customers should bear their fair share of the generation, transmission, and infrastructure costs associated with their growth rather than shifting those costs onto families, small businesses, and existing ratepayers. America's electric grid was already facing enormous modernization requirements. Transmission systems are aging. Generation fleets are evolving. AI is accelerating the urgency of these investments. It did not create the underlying challenge. Utilities are expected to spend approximately $1.4 trillion over the next five years modernizing the electric grid, replacing aging infrastructure, hardening systems against extreme weather, and expanding capacity. Recent Department of Energy actions to preserve dispatchable generation reflect a growing recognition that reliability and resilience must remain central considerations in America's energy transition. The challenge is not simply building new resources. It is ensuring the electric system remains dependable during periods of peak demand, extreme weather, and other conditions that place stress on the grid. The real challenge is not choosing between renewable and traditional energy. It is building a reliable, affordable, resilient, and scalable system capable of supporting long-term economic growth while withstanding major disruptions and restoring service quickly when Americans need power most. Pretending otherwise may satisfy radical climate activists. It will not keep electricity affordable. It will not keep the lights on during hurricanes, polar freezes, or extreme heat events when millions of Americans depend on electricity not simply for convenience, but for safety and survival. Recent victories in Georgia and Arizona have emboldened radical climate activists and their allies, who increasingly view state utility and regulatory commission races as some of the most important battlegrounds in American energy policy. Republicans, business leaders, and ratepayers should start paying attention. The decisions made by these commissions will shape the affordability, reliability, resilience, and economic competitiveness of the American economy for decades to come. Elizabeth Gianini is President of the Regulators RoundTable PAC. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 11:40

Strategy's New Math: Dilution Equals Accretion? Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance Strategy’s Bitcoin is worth roughly $12 billion less than the company paid for it, yet Michael Saylor’s message last week was simple: “Business is Good.” But today’s article isn’t really about unrealized losses. It’s about whether Strategy is changing the way it measures shareholder accretion and company performance on the fly — also known as “moving the goalposts”. As a short seller, I’ve watched innumerable companies “move the goalposts” and try and focus the market on new metrics when old ones aren’t showing the story they want them to anymore. Sometimes, companies outright delete key performance indicators (KPIs) and use new ones. Strategy has taught investors that the objective was to increase Bitcoin ownership on a per-share basis. The company created “BTC Yield” as a KPI specifically to measure whether capital raises and Bitcoin purchases were benefiting existing shareholders. Strategy repeatedly argued that traditional accounting metrics were largely irrelevant and that what mattered was how much Bitcoin each share represented. For example, from the Q1 2026 earnings call: “Our ultimate objective is for our common to outperform Bitcoin by accreting Bitcoin per share…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le “Which should increase the Bitcoin per share in our common stock, which is ultimately our goal…” - Strategy CEO Phong Le “One is Bitcoin per share accretion is our primary goal.” - Strategy CEO Phong Le These statements leave little room for interpretation. Bitcoin per share isn’t merely one metric among many. It is presented as the central measure of equity performance. That’s what makes the recent capital raise and bitcoin buy so interesting. According to Strategy’s own website, BTC Yield declined between June 1 and June 8. Under the framework the company spent years promoting, that’s a problem. If BTC Yield measures whether shareholders are becoming owners of more Bitcoin on a per-share basis, then a decline means the transaction was dilutive to existing shareholders on that metric. That doesn’t automatically mean the raise was a bad decision. A company can improve liquidity, strengthen its balance sheet, or position itself for future opportunities while still reducing Bitcoin per share in the short term. But it does mean that under Strategy’s own preferred scoreboard, shareholders ended up with less Bitcoin exposure per share after the transaction than before. Rather than defending the raise on BTC Yield grounds, Saylor now appears to be emphasizing a different framework. His argument is that when both Bitcoin and cash are included, the transaction was accretive. In other words, shareholders may own less Bitcoin per share, but they own more total assets per share. That not an enormous shift in narrative — not unlike how selling 32 bitcoin wasn’t a huge sale — but it’s a shift nonetheless. For years, the pitch was Bitcoin per share. Now the defense is assets per share. Critics have noticed the change. One observer on X summarized it this way: “Changing his own definition after the fact. When BTC Yield goes up, bulls celebrate it as proof of shareholder accretion. When BTC Yield goes down, suddenly we’re supposed to ignore BTC Yield and invent a new metric that includes cash.” Another pointed out the deeper tension. Saylor spent years building a valuation framework around Bitcoin-per-share growth. Yet when defending the recent raise, he relied on net asset value logic. The problem is that Strategy’s premium has never been justified by the current value of the assets sitting on the balance sheet. Investors have ostensibly historically paid a premium because they may have believed management could continue growing Bitcoin ownership per share over time. The valuation, to the best of my understanding, rested on future Bitcoin-per-share growth, not a static snapshot of current assets. That’s why the debate matters. If the relevant metric is Bitcoin per share, then the decline in BTC Yield raises uncomfortable questions about the transaction. If the relevant metric is current net assets per share, then the raise may look defensible, but the rationale for a substantial premium over net asset value becomes harder to explain. 🔥 80% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 80% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 85% savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber.: Get 80% off forever Saylor appears to be trying to have it both ways. The old framework supports the premium but makes the recent raise look dilutive. The new framework supports the raise but weakens the logic behind the premium. Investors can reasonably prefer either framework, but they should notice when management switches from one to the other. Saylor is also engaging in what appears to be ticky-tacky doublespeak to explain his actions... “I told YOU never to sell $BTC. I never said the COMPANY wouldn’t sell $BTC .” That’s how Saylor responded to the question about selling 32 $BTC pic.twitter.com/vn7o1DqKP1 — newry | 𝔽rAI (@NeWry24) June 13, 2026 The real issue isn’t whether the weekend raise was good or bad. It’s whether the company is still using the same definition of shareholder accretion that it spent years teaching investors to use. When BTC Yield was rising, Strategy told shareholders that Bitcoin per share was the metric that mattered most. Now that BTC Yield has fallen, Saylor is increasingly talking about total assets per share instead. Investors should decide for themselves whether that’s an evolution in thinking or simply moving the goalposts. And Saylor better hope bitcoin doesn’t keep crashing. -- QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author. This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets. And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier. The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 10:30

Former UK Prime Minister Admits Mass Migration Is Being Weaponized To Undermine Western Civilization Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity, In the space of hours, Britain endured yet more random barbaric violence. A 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck on a quiet residential street in Burnley, Lancashire, and a 21-year-old man was murdered in Central Park, Chelmsford, Essex. These incidents form part of a relentless pattern of attacks that former Prime Minister Liz Truss directly links to mass migration policies and the deliberate undermining of British society. Truss described institutions corrupted by leftist ideology that suppress facts about the root cause - mass migration - while left-wing politicians weaponise immigration to erode the nation state itself. The public is livid. The official response under Keir Starmer has been to target those exposing the problem rather than the problem itself. On Friday afternoon, a 17-year-old girl was walking alone on a street in Burnley, a small town in northern England, when a man approached from behind and stabbed her in the back of the neck. Armed police responded swiftly. The victim was treated in hospital; her injuries were miraculously not life-threatening. A 30-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder. ??A 30-year-old man was filmed stabbing a 17-year-old girl in neck in Burnley, England. Now, a video has been published which reportedly shows the man being arrested. Follow: @RMXnews pic.twitter.com/X4B1c4be3g - Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 12, 2026 Lancashire Police confirmed the attack and deployed extra patrols for community reassurance. Whle mainstream reports omitted key background details, GB News reporter Charlie Peters later stated that Lancashire Police confirmed the suspect is a British-born man of Pakistani heritage. Lancashire Police has confirmed that a 30-year-old British-born man of Pakistani heritage has been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder after a 17-year-old girl was stabbed in the neck in Brierfield. The force said that the girl's injuries were not life-threatening. pic.twitter.com/vim5VueLLY - Charlie Peters (@CDP1882) June 13, 2026 Video footage circulating online shows the unprovoked attack and the subsequent arrest. Public reaction has been one of fury and exhaustion at yet another random stabbing of a young girl in broad daylight. Hours later, emergency services were called to Central Park in Chelmsford, Essex after reports of a serious assault. A 21-year-old man was found with critical injuries and pronounced dead at the scene. He had been stabbed. BREAKING: Police arrest three teenage murder suspects after man dies in Essex park https://t.co/4qLToIKyuL - GB News (@GBNEWS) June 13, 2026 Essex Police arrested three teenagers - a 14-year-old boy, a 17-year-old boy and an 18-year-old man - all from the Chelmsford area, on suspicion of murder. They remain in custody. Detective Inspector Lydia George described it as a deeply distressing incident and confirmed no further suspects were being sought. Literally cannot keep up with the amount of these in the UK now. https://t.co/uVhLa8SpTq - m o d e r n i t y (@ModernityNews) June 13, 2026 These cases arrive amid a documented surge in such violence that has become impossible to ignore. In widely shared commentary, Truss argued that recent violent attacks reveal an establishment corrupted by DEI priorities that place ideology above equal treatment under the law. She stated that the response to public concern is suppression of information and attacks on those highlighting the root causes. Truss described how left-wing politicians actively encourage immigration to undermine the basis of society and Western civilisation. She said they seek to erode the family and the nation state. When British people say they have had enough, the reaction from Starmer's government is to arrest and jail those who express concern. "They want to undermine the family. They want to undermine the nation state. And people in Britain are saying 'we've had enough of this,'" Truss urged. "People are absolutely livid about what's happening in our country," she continued, adding "Our institutions have become corrupted... by the DEI mentality, rather than focusing on everybody being treated equally under the law. Their response is to try and suppress what's happening... and attack those who are saying 'why are these things happening?'" The Lancashire and Essex incidents follow closely on the heels of the horrific attack in Belfast earlier this week. There, an African migrant from Sudan named Hadi Alodid was involved in a street assault on a vulnerable local man, Stephen Ogilvie, in which the attacker attempted to saw off the victim's head in public. Ogilvie, described as special needs and hard of hearing, had reportedly helped the migrants move into nearby accommodation just days earlier. A local witness stated that two migrants were involved, not one, and that a second Sudanese man remained at large. The attack triggered widespread unrest in loyalist areas, with properties linked to recent arrivals targeted. Police rescued foreign nationals from burning buildings. The victim suffered life-changing injuries and remained in hospital. And all of this comes in the wake of revelations surrounding the murder of Henry Nowak. Official reports and much of the legacy media continue to downplay or omit perpetrator backgrounds in these cases, even as independent journalists and ordinary citizens document the pattern. The result is a two-tier information environment where facts about migration-linked violence are treated as dangerous while the violence itself continues. When citizens notice the demographic reality of many perpetrators and the policy decisions that enabled their presence, the response is not honest examination but censorship and criminalisation of speech. Starmer's government has shown particular zeal in pursuing those protesting the consequences of mass migration, while insisting that the public avert its gaze. This is not an accident of policy. It is the predictable outcome of decades of globalist open-border ideology that prioritised abstract diversity over the concrete safety and cohesion of existing communities. The British people did not vote for this transformation. They were never asked. Britain's experience serves as a warning. Uncontrolled mass immigration, sold as compassion or economic necessity, has delivered neither safety nor prosperity for the native population in many areas. It has delivered parallel societies, imported crime patterns, and a political class more interested in silencing critics than protecting citizens. The question for Britain is no longer whether the current trajectory is sustainable. It is how much more violence and cultural erosion the public will tolerate before demanding leaders who actually represent the interests of the country they govern. The facts are no longer suppressible. The people are no longer silent. Just some of the innocent people murdered by migrants in modern England - the youngest being 5-years-old, the eldest 88. We've since had near-fatal attacks in Belfast and Burnley. When will enough be enough? How many more must die at the altar of diversity? ????????? pic.twitter.com/8dzWVcNVnw - Suffragent (@Suffragent_) June 13, 2026 Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 08:10

Indigenous Nonsense Authored by Spyridon Andrews via American Greatness, When the dust settles hundreds of years from now and people begin to assess the hows and whys of Western decline, the issue of colonialism will figure prominently. We are traveling from Mexico City to San Miguel de Allende with “The Professor,” a San Miguel resident who makes extra money by driving tourists from Mexico City to San Miguel. The title of professor is honorary. He is a self-taught scholar, a writer, and a highly intelligent man who works odd jobs around San Miguel to earn a living. The Professor is sharing tales of the Aztec Empire with us as we drive northward, stopped only briefly by the friendly Mexican police who take their usual bribe of around $200 as insurance against being arrested for more serious crimes, real or fictitious. The Professor goes on to tell us that all the horrible atrocities allegedly committed by the Aztecs were lies, all lies. Native American culture is burned into the mental DNA of Central Mexico. Children assemble on holidays dressed like little Aztec warriors for parades. There is pride in their Aztec heritage. On the way back, we stop to see the pyramids outside Mexico City, and The Professor is full of information about this fascinating culture. He describes their innovation, tremendous power, and unrivaled legacy. The Professor is a proud man. But despite my enormous respect for The Professor, the stories about the Aztecs are not lies. The Aztecs believed that the gods had sacrificed themselves to create the world and that, out of necessity, human blood was required to keep the sun moving across the sky. Human and animal sacrifice have been elemental features of nature religions throughout history. The harvest required blood. The Aztecs sacrificed prisoners of war in religious ceremonies. The prisoners were led to the tops of temple pyramids, held down by priests, and had their hearts cut out while still alive. Their bodies were then strewn down the steps of the pyramid; the bloodier the spectacle, the better. Archaeological studies at sites such as Templo Mayor have uncovered racks of human skulls known as tzompantli. Human sacrifice was one of the things that made the empire go, alongside continual military conquest and tribute extraction. Subject peoples were required to provide food, textiles, luxury goods, labor, and, when the priests ran out of bodies, sacrificial victims. The Aztecs were so hated that many indigenous groups allied themselves with the Spaniards. The Mayans also get a bit of a pass. They are remembered for their astronomy, mathematics, writing system, and cities, but not nearly as much for their human sacrifice, torture, and public humiliation of victims. Ritual killings were common, and murder was infused with religious meaning and legitimacy. There is an awful lot of emphasis on the atrocities of the Spanish conquerors, and there should be. The conquistadores were not such nice guys either. But for all the talk about colonialism, few dare to examine it thoughtfully. Contrary to what they may believe over at Barnard or Smith College, fighting colonialism does not consist of wearing a mask into Philz Coffee. History shows that colonialism is not good or bad in the abstract, any more than all indigenous populations were terrific people who deserved to remain in power forever. The coffee-shop view of colonialism assumes that moral legitimacy flows automatically from historical priority. We are told that people who arrived first possess a uniquely valid claim to the land and that later arrivals are forever burdened by a kind of original sin. Arguments about ownership in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and the Americas frequently revolve around the endlessly repeated question of who was there first. To which I say, is this the real question? Human history is not a story of static populations peacefully occupying fixed territories. Human history is a bloody mess. It is a story of migration, conquest, assimilation, intermarriage, commerce, shifting alliances, and conflict. Before one group was there, another was there. And before them, another. The idea of an original owner is neither logical nor provable. The notion that being “here first” creates a permanent political entitlement does not survive even minimal scrutiny. If first possession establishes political sovereignty, then every modern nation on earth is illegitimate. Every border, kingdom, republic, and civilization would need to defend itself against claims arising from earlier migrations and forgotten peoples. Equally false are theological and mystical claims to land. In Israel today, three different religions claim rights to the same patch of desert based upon the authority of their holy books. Throughout history, religions have invoked divine authority to invade neighboring lands, expel inhabitants, and wage war. Whether the justification comes from Manifest Destiny, the Torah, the Talmud, the Koran, or some other sacred source, the underlying claim is essentially the same. And it is nonsense. The more important question is not who was here first. The more important question is who governs well. I submit that political legitimacy is derived from creating conditions in which human beings can flourish. Legitimacy is established through justice, the protection of liberty, the maintenance of order and safety, the safeguarding of property, the encouragement of opportunity, and the principle that rulers themselves are subject to law. Today’s discussions of colonialism often condemn it as a single phenomenon. Yet colonial ventures—and indigenous governments—varied enormously. Some colonial regimes were exploitative and destructive. Others introduced institutions that became the foundation of later prosperity. Most contained elements of both. Some colonial regimes, like Great Britain in many instances, created railroads, ports, courts, universities, modern medicine, commercial systems, property rights, and civil administration. Historical analysis requires attention to actual results rather than slogans. Under British administration, Hong Kong evolved from a relatively modest trading settlement into one of the world’s most prosperous financial centers. The British were not perfect, since they were, after all, British. But they created opportunities for millions of people over the century, or so they were in power. Then the indigenous Chinese government came into power, bringing its usual basket of fun. Beijing imposed the National Security Law in 2020. Hong Kong went from one of the freest and most prosperous cities in Asia to a place where political dissent can land you in prison. Independent newspapers were shut down, activists jailed, elections restructured, and civic organizations dissolved. But don’t worry, because it was indigenous. Singapore followed a different path. The British established a major international port, a functioning legal system, English-language administration, and commercial institutions. Singapore’s leaders built upon those foundations rather than dismantling them. The result was one of the most remarkable economic transformations in modern history. Today, Singapore is one of the safest, wealthiest, and most efficiently governed societies in the world. They built upon foundations laid by the evil colonizers. Then there is India. British rule was far from one big tea party. Nevertheless, modern India inherited a nationwide civil service, a common-law legal system, rail networks, universities, administrative structures, and commercial institutions that continue to play important roles today. The British made considerable damage, the most lasting of which may be the Indian fascination with cricket, a hideous and boring game, along with the equally annoying habit of taking tea in the middle of a match. So not all colonial empires are created equal. And now, we should also point out, not all indigenous cultures are created equal. There are many examples, including recent ones, of governments that enjoyed broad cultural support before delivering poverty, repression, corruption, economic stagnation, and the suppression of civil liberties. Cuba, Venezuela, and many African nations come readily to mind. This confidence in indigenous culture is often paired with the equally dubious assumption that all cultures are equal in their outcomes. Sorry, despite what your anthropology professor told you, all cultures are not equal. Some encourage innovation, literacy, accountability, and economic development. Some protect women, minorities, and dissenters. Some cultivate the peaceful transfer of power. Others normalize violence, patronage, corruption, and disregard for human rights. Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe was indigenous. He imposed political repression, economic mismanagement, hyperinflation, and destroyed the agricultural sector. He was handed the ball on the five-yard line and fumbled it. Idi Amin was indigenous. His regime became notorious for brutality and persecution. South Africa today has an indigenous government. So does Mexico. The fact that leaders share ancestry with the people they govern tells us nothing about whether they govern wisely. And what about us? How much comfort should we take from the fact that our own political class is homegrown? Does it make endless debt, endless wars, corruption, and institutional decline more acceptable because the people responsible were born here? History is not sentimental. It does not care who arrived first, whose ancestors crossed a particular river, or whose holy book claims title to a patch of ground. History does not award virtue based upon genealogy, ethnicity, race, religion, or indigeneity. It asks a far more practical question: What did you do with the place once you got it? Did you create liberty or oppression? Prosperity or poverty? Justice or corruption? Did ordinary people have the opportunity to build families, businesses, communities, and meaningful lives? Were rulers constrained by law, or did they become laws unto themselves? Did your institutions survive your leaders, or did everything collapse into tribalism, violence, and decay? That is how civilizations are judged. Rome is not remembered because Romans got there first. Britain is not remembered because Britons got there first. America will not be remembered because Americans got here first. They will be remembered for what they built, what they preserved, what they destroyed, and whether they expanded or diminished the possibilities of human flourishing. In the end, legitimacy is not inherited. It is earned. It does not arise from ancestry, mythology, chronology, or blood. It arises from competence, justice, liberty, opportunity, and the rule of law. The question is not who was here first. The question has always been, and will always be, who governs well. Tyler Durden Sun, 06/14/2026 - 07:00

Which States Are Leading America's Economy? America’s biggest economies aren’t always its strongest. While California, Texas, and New York dominate in economic size, long-term competitiveness depends on a broader mix of factors, from business creation and labor market strength to innovation and investment. This 2026 analysis by WalletHub evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C. across 28 indicators of economic activity, economic health, and innovation potential. This ranking, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, highlights the states that are building the foundations for future growth. Where Every State Ranks in 2026 The ranking below evaluates the economic strength of all 50 states and Washington, D.C. in 2026: Rank State Total State Economy Score 2026 1 Massachusetts 69.4 2 Washington 67.3 3 Utah 65.9 4 California 65.0 5 Delaware 63.0 6 North Carolina 60.3 7 New York 57.6 8 Texas 57.0 9 Colorado 56.4 10 Florida 54.3 11 Idaho 53.4 12 Georgia 53.1 13 New Hampshire 52.9 14 Virginia 51.2 15 Arizona 51.1 16 Connecticut 51.0 17 Tennessee 50.8 18 South Carolina 49.3 19 Montana 48.9 20 Maryland 48.7 21 Minnesota 48.1 22 Indiana 47.4 23 Kansas 47.3 24 Oregon 47.1 25 New Jersey 46.2 26 New Mexico 45.7 27 Michigan 44.6 28 Alabama 44.4 29 Vermont 44.4 30 Pennsylvania 44.2 31 Wisconsin 43.5 32 Alaska 42.9 33 District of Columbia 42.1 34 Nebraska 41.7 35 Nevada 41.1 36 Arkansas 40.3 37 Illinois 40.1 38 Ohio 39.8 39 Iowa 39.3 40 North Dakota 38.8 41 South Dakota 38.7 42 Missouri 38.4 43 Oklahoma 38.3 44 Hawaii 38.3 45 Mississippi 36.2 46 Wyoming 35.9 47 Rhode Island 35.4 48 Maine 33.8 49 Louisiana 33.2 50 Kentucky 32.4 51 West Virginia 25.4 Why Massachusetts Leads the Ranking Massachusetts outperformed larger states including California, Texas, and New York thanks to its combination of innovation output, STEM talent, and business formation. It is also home to many of the nation’s fastest-growing tech companies, with business creation propelled by its innovation-driven economy and world-class universities. Despite being the nation’s 15th-most populous state, Massachusetts is well-positioned to drive innovation and economic growth as technology rapidly accelerates. Innovation Is the Biggest Separator The 10 highest-ranking states differ significantly in geography, politics, and industry mix. However, they share a common strength: generating new ideas and new businesses at a considerable rate. Like Massachusetts, Washington is powered by technology and research. Notably, software developers rank as Washington’s most common occupation. California remains the epicenter for AI giants and venture capital activity. Utah is now one of the country’s fastest-growing tech hubs, with cost-of-living-adjusted median household income reaching $91,600, the highest in the nation. In contrast, many of the lowest-ranked states produce fewer high-growth companies due to lower investment levels, fewer patents, and less-developed innovation ecosystems. The New Geography of Growth One of the clearest patterns in the ranking is the continued rise of the Sun Belt. North Carolina, Texas, Florida, and Georgia all rank among America’s economic leaders, reflecting years of population growth, business investment, and job creation. North Carolina ranks sixth overall, ahead of New York and Colorado. In 2025, it gained a net 84,100 residents, the highest in the country. Texas places eighth, while Florida and Georgia also rank among the top 15. Tennessee and South Carolina also finish comfortably in the upper half of the ranking, while both states recorded some of the strongest domestic migration gains last year. The result is a broader shift in America’s economic map. While coastal innovation hubs remain dominant, many Southern states are becoming important centers of growth in their own right. The States Building Tomorrow’s Economy The rankings suggest that future economic leadership will depend less on size alone and more on a state’s ability to attract talent, support entrepreneurship, and turn innovation into growth. To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the fastest-growing states by 2050. Tyler Durden Sat, 06/13/2026 - 22:45