Zerohedge

President Trump’s tariffs are hitting car buyers hard, with prices expected to rise nearly $2,000 per vehicle, according to consulting firm AlixPartners. The firm estimates that automakers will pass on 80% of the $30 billion tariff cost, adding about $1,760 per car, according to Bloomberg.

“These tariffs bring a big wall of cost,” said Mark Wakefield, AlixPartners’ global auto lead. “We see consumers taking the majority of the hit.”

General Motors and Ford have already projected tariff-related hits of $5 billion and $2.5 billion, respectively, and plan to offset some of it through price hikes. Wakefield warned this will result in around 1 million fewer cars sold in the U.S. over the next three years. Still, AlixPartners sees a rebound, projecting U.S. auto sales to hit 17 million by 2030.

Bloomberg reports that while the 25% tariff is steep now, the firm expects it to ease as trade deals evolve, predicting a drop to 7.5% for assembled cars and 5% for parts. “This tariff wall is not likely to last forever,” Wakefield noted.

What may have longer-lasting consequences, however, is the Trump administration’s rollback of EV incentives, including the $7,500 consumer tax credit. Without that support, Americans are expected to “follow their pocketbook,” Wakefield said, and stick with gas-powered cars.

As a result, AlixPartners slashed its EV forecast for 2030. They now see battery electrics making up just 17% of U.S. car sales—down from an earlier prediction of 31%. Internal combustion engines, previously expected to fall to one-third of sales, are now projected to hold at 50%. Traditional hybrids are forecast to reach 27%, while plug-in hybrids will make up only 6%.

Wakefield warned that these policy shifts could seriously undercut U.S. automakers in the global EV race, potentially making them reliant on Chinese platforms and technology.

“It makes it much more likely that they end up licensing or joint venturing or otherwise using platforms and EV technologies from China,” he said.

And while American automakers might still dominate one segment, Wakefield had a biting prediction: “They’ll have the world’s best V8 engines by 2028. They’ll probably also have the world’s only V8 engines by 2028.”

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

German federal police were filmed quietly dropping off a migrant in the Dutch city of Venlo in the early hours of the morning in what appears to be a cross-border expulsion carried out without the knowledge of local Dutch authorities.

The incident, which took place in May, came to light after local florist Masha Verstappen’s security camera captured the scene, and she later shared her concerns publicly.

The footage shows a police van arriving at around 4:00 a.m., parking briefly as a man is handed a suitcase and a large brown envelope, then left behind as the vehicle drives away.

“He sat outside for a few more hours and used my power to charge his phone,” she told Dutch outlet L1 Nieuws. “We are less than 100 meters from the border here.”

🇳🇱🇩🇪‼️ German police officers have been caught on camera crossing the Dutch border to drop off migrants.

CCTV footage from a florist in Venlo recorded the moment a man was left at 4 a.m. with his suitcase and a brown envelope in the Dutch city, just 4 miles from Germany.

The… pic.twitter.com/oPpfsLFGgl

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 23, 2025

The Dutch Ministry of Asylum and Migration confirmed to L1 Nieuws it was aware of such incidents and admitted they have been occurring for years.

A spokesperson said there are two types of transfers of foreign nationals between Germany and the Netherlands: so-called “hot transfers,” where a migrant is physically handed over between authorities, and “cold transfers,” in which no coordination takes place.

The May incident is categorized as a cold transfer.

The ministry defended the legality of the practice, stating that such returns are not classified as illegal “pushback” because they occur within the Schengen Area, not at an external European border.

This assessment, however, is a moot point. There have been multiple instances in which courts have intervened to rule the return of migrants from one EU country to another to be unlawful, including between Germany and Poland.

A German judge ruled in early June that such expulsions are unlawful, affirming that all individuals have the right to a fair asylum procedure. The Bundespolizei, however, maintains that it is acting within its rights.

That particular case concerned three Somali nationals who had arrived in Frankfurt (Oder) on May 9 by train, only to be removed back to Poland by the German authorities despite having declared their intention to seek asylum.

The Berlin Administrative Court ruled the German government could not bypass the Dublin Regulation by invoking emergency clauses under the EU treaties where there was “a lack of sufficient demonstration of a danger to public safety or order.”

The drop-off in Venlo appears to be a byproduct of increased German border checks under the new CDU-led federal government. When those individuals are believed to have come from the Netherlands, they are sometimes returned without formal coordination, as in the case of the Venlo incident.

The municipality of Venlo, however, said it had no prior knowledge of the incident and reiterated that it has no jurisdiction over border control or immigration enforcement. “The police and the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee are responsible for supervising the lawful residence of foreign nationals. Furthermore, it is up to the national governments to make mutual agreements about this,” a spokesperson for Mayor Scholten said.

The Dutch coalition government collapsed recently over the insistence of Geert Wilders, leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV), for a stricter asylum policy.

With fresh elections on the horizon, Wilders has remained committed to defending the Dutch border, potentially putting any future Dutch government on a collision course with Berlin over such practices.

Read more here…

Is this what’s beyond Beyond Meat?

Australia just gave lab-grown meat the official thumbs-up, approving the sale of cultivated Japanese quail and joining the elite global club of… three. That’s right—only Singapore, the U.S., and now Australia are on board with selling meat that’s never had feathers, feet, or a heartbeat, Bloomberg wrote last week. 

Sydney-based startup Vow is behind the venture and says it’ll start serving up foie gras, parfait, and other fancy dishes made from quail cells in select restaurants within weeks. This follows a long-overdue tweak to the country’s food standards code, years in the making.

The science behind it? Cultivating animal cells in vats instead of raising entire animals, allegedly to save the planet and spare some lives. Noble goals, sure. But the cultivated meat industry hasn’t exactly been thriving. Funding is drying up, scaling remains a headache, and the political pushback—especially in the U.S.—has turned into a sideshow.

“While other markets face regulatory uncertainty, Australia is embracing innovation and consumers are ready to try something new and delicious,” Vow CEO George Peppou said, clearly feeling good about being the new kid on the bioreactor block.

Vow’s lab-grown quail will show up under its Forged brand at places like NEL in Sydney and Bottarga in Melbourne. Meanwhile, in Singapore, where Vow already operates, the company claims 200% month-over-month growth. Though when your starting point is a couple of upscale restaurant menus, that math isn’t exactly hard to beat.

Production is still a drop in the bucket compared to the real meat market, but Vow promises to hit 10.8 tons a month by year’s end. The company’s managed to raise more than $70 million from investors including Blackbird, Square Peg, and Peakbridge—suggesting at least some people are betting that cell-cultured quail is more than a novelty.

Still, whether diners will bite—or keep biting once the novelty wears off—remains the real question. It’s one thing to get approval; it’s another to convince people their $45 foie gras came from a vat and not a bird, and that’s a good thing.

Via Middle East Eye

Israeli and US attacks on Iran risk sparking a regional war or even triggering regime change in the country, a development that has concerned Turkish officials in Ankara since September. The Israeli strikes that began earlier this month initially targeted Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and air defense systems.

Over time, however, Israel shifted its focus toward the Iranian government’s command structure and later moved on to domestic security buildings. For example, on Monday, Israeli forces reportedly targeted the internal headquarters of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as the notorious Evin prison, where political prisoners are held.

One Israeli minister even suggested that Israel was cooperating with the Iranian opposition, reinforcing Defence Minister Israel Katz’s public statements that Israel seeks regime change or at least aims to undermine the Tehran government.

That is a prospect that US President Donald Trump tried to normalize on Sunday night with a post on Truth Social. “If the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???” he asked. 

The Turkish government is acutely aware of the repercussions of regime-change operations and wars, having experienced the destabilizing effects of the 2003 US-led Iraqi invasion and, more recently, the 2011-24 Syrian [proxy] civil war. These conflicts have often resulted in hundreds of thousands of refugees crossing into Turkey and have disrupted key sectors such as energy and trade.

Turkish society remains highly sensitive about the presence of refugees, notably the 2.7 million Syrians, many of whom are now returning to Syria after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government. Experts and officials emphasize that there is currently no new wave of refugees.

However, several sources familiar with the issue told Middle East Eye that as early as September, the Turkish government conducted in-depth studies on potential migration scenarios. They estimated that a full-scale war between Israel and Iran could push up to one million Iranian refugees towards the Turkish border.

Turkey has the experience. In 2012, then-foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu attempted to control the influx of Syrian refugees by capping their number at 100,000 and threatening to establish a safe zone in northern Syria. However, the number of refugees quickly surpassed three million in the following years, which taught Ankara a difficult lesson.

Now, sources say Ankara is unlikely to accept any refugees except those in urgent need of emergency assistance.

“If the worst-case scenario were to occur and there was a mass migration from Iran to Turkey, whether permanent or in transit, Ankara would fulfil its obligations under humanitarian law, but it would not implement an open-door policy,” Serhan Afacan, president of the Center for Iranian Studies in Ankara, told Middle East Eye.

A Turkish official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Ankara would no longer apply an “open door” policy toward any neighbouring country in the event of a refugee wave. Iranians currently can enter Turkey without a visa.

An elite influx?

Many Turkish citizens are particularly wary of the possible arrival of the 4.5 million Afghans currently living in Iran. However, Afacan noted that millions of Turkish-speaking ethnic Azerbaijanis also live in Iran. He said that if they were to gather at the border, it could shift the debate in Turkey and stir nationalistic sentiments. “But at present, there are no indications that Turks in Iran are planning to migrate,” Afacan added.

Last week, sources from the Turkish defence ministry told journalists there is currently no sign of a refugee influx into Turkey. One source stated that additional security measures have been implemented along all borders, including with Iran, and there is no uncontrolled migration. The Turkish Armed Forces are said to be prepared for all possible scenarios arising from regional developments.

This raises the question of whether Turkey would allow Iranian elites, including government officials, to enter if their government collapses. Many Iranians have already bought homes or acquired Turkish citizenship through investment in recent years.

According to interior ministry data released this year, 76,000 Iranians hold residence permits in Turkey. At least 35,000 have purchased homes since 2019, according to the Turkish Statistical Institute data released in 2024.

It is unclear whether all these purchases were made to obtain Turkish citizenship, but a naturalisation consultancy expert told MEE that Iranians are among the top nationalities seeking Turkish citizenship. Between 2012 and 2024, a total of 384,000 homes were sold to foreigners.

Afacan said many Iranian officials and military officers already own property in Turkey. For instance, during the emergency elections following President Ebrahim Raisi’s death in a helicopter crash last year, there was a major controversy over claims that Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and his family owned several luxurious apartments in an upscale Istanbul residence.

Afacan added that, as in the aftermath of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, albeit on a much smaller scale, a significant number of Iranian government officials would likely head to Turkey if the government were to fall.

“I do not believe that Turkey would close its doors to such individuals in that kind of scenario,” he said.

French authorities detained 12 suspects after 145 people reported being pricked with syringes during Fête de la Musique — France’s annual World Music Day celebration. For perspective on how dramatically the festival has changed in three decades, compare the atmosphere of the 1994 event to the chaos seen this past weekend. 

Fête de la Musique in Paris in 1994 vs. 2025.

France is no longer France. pic.twitter.com/6a70UaBxXS

— iamyesyouareno (@iamyesyouareno) June 23, 2025

Millions flooded the streets across France on Saturday to celebrate the universal language of music through open-air concerts, pop-up performances, community orchestras, DJ sets, and more. While footage earlier in the day showed an orderly atmosphere, the night quickly descended into unrest. 

🔴🔞🇫🇷 ALERTE VIDÉO | Compilation des vidéos de la #FetedelaMusique pic.twitter.com/tkdE8DCTWM

— Jon De Lorraine (@jon_delorraine) June 22, 2025

🇫🇷🔥France: Clashes with police and tear gas during the Festival of Music 2025 in Paris (Fête de la Musique).

371 arrested and 1,500 injuries were made during the 2-day festival, which descended into chaos. pic.twitter.com/qSHlLRGIew

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 22, 2025

🔴 Fête de la musique #FêteDesBarbares : 1500 personnes blessées, dont 14 en urgence absolue (Figaro). Une insoutenable barbarie se répand partout en France du fait de la submersion migratoire extra-européenne, et en parler serait “raciste” ? 🙄 Vidéos ⤵️ pic.twitter.com/8RyHO9Wq4N

— Outofnone (@Outofnone1) June 22, 2025

State-owned international news television France 24 provided more color on the stabbings:

Before the party, posts on Snapchat and other social media had called for targeting women during the festivities.

The interior ministry said 145 victims reported being stabbed with needles across the country, with Paris police reporting 13 cases in the capital.

Officials did not specify if they were cases of so-called needle spiking with date-rape drugs such as Rohypnol or GHB, used by attackers to render victims confused or unconscious and vulnerable to sexual assault.

“Some victims were taken to hospital for toxicological tests,” the ministry said.

In Paris, investigations were opened after three people including a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old male, reported being stabbed in three different locations in Paris, prosecutors said.

We need to revisit footage from the 1994 Fête de la Musique to understand what went wrong with society. The difference is stark, and much of the blame likely lies with decades of failed progressive policies that have eroded society, fueling chaos and lawlessness. Mass migration has likely accelerated these problems.

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump will arrive in The Hague, Netherlands, today June 24 for a critical NATO summit, aiming to secure unprecedented defense spending commitments from allies, an issue he has championed for years.

This year’s summit is poised to set a bold new defense spending target of 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) for each member country, more than doubling the current 2 percent benchmark.

Trump’s whirlwind 24-hour visit to the Netherlands comes amid a geopolitical storm in the Middle East as peace (well, a ceasefire allegedly) almost breaks out between Iran and Israel conflict (following Iran’s ‘theatric’ attack on US bases after US airstrikes over the weekend on three Iranian nuclear facilities, which were intended to halt Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons).

Because of the mounting tensions in the Middle East, the U.S. president is keeping things short at NATO, much like his brief Group of Seven (G7) summit appearance in Canada a week earlier.

Despite the shortened agenda, he is expected to tackle several other pressing issues, including the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia sanctions, and the future of the U.S. military posture in Europe.

Additionally, all eyes will be on Trump’s interactions with French President Emmanuel Macron—whom he recently criticized over Iran comments—and with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who remains unsettled by Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland.

Here is what to expect at this year’s summit:

New Defense Spending Target

The upcoming summit in The Hague will focus primarily on establishing a new defense spending target for member countries.

Trump has long been critical of NATO countries for not paying their fair share for the alliance. Since returning to the White House in January, he has intensified pressure on member states to meet higher defense spending targets.

To address Trump’s concerns, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has proposed increasing the target for member countries from the current minimum of 2 percent of GDP to 5 percent annually.

His two-tiered proposal calls for allies to allocate 3.5 percent of GDP to core defense spending and an additional 1.5 percent to infrastructure and industrial capacity.

A growing number of European NATO members, including Germany, have backed this new proposal.

This year’s summit would likely formalize the new spending target, with debates centering on the timeline and implementation.

“The president intends to secure a historic 5 percent defense spending pledge from NATO allies, which will strengthen the alliance’s combined military capabilities and ensure greater stability in Europe and the world,” a senior U.S. official told reporters during a call last week.

Trump will push allies at the upcoming summit to boost industrial capacities to create “supply chains capable of producing the critical minerals, infrastructure, weapons, and other products necessary for the security of America and her allies,” the official said.

The 2 percent GDP defense spending goal, set in 2014 after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, is met by 23 of NATO’s 32 members, according to the estimates.

The new 5 percent target reflects a growing consensus that Europe must take greater responsibility for its security.

“Europeans have understood that they must shoulder primary responsibility for their own security and defense in the future,” James Goldgeier and Sophie Roehse, foreign policy experts at the Brookings Institution, wrote in a recent report.

“This recognition will only strengthen NATO and should have occurred long ago.”

The timeline for achieving the 5 percent target remains contentious. While some NATO allies propose a 2035 target, several countries, driven by regional security threats, advocate for an earlier target date.

“Aside from the Baltics, who are pushing hard for 2030, most allies have been lobbying for a later date,” said Sara Moller, associate teaching professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.

“But the Trump team clearly wants to light a fire and move things along faster.”

Spain Resists NATO Spending Target

NATO officials have been eager to secure consensus on a new spending commitment ahead of the summit.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez announced last week that his country would not commit to the proposed 5 percent defense spending target.

And on June 21, Sánchez said he had reached a deal with NATO to be excluded from the 5 percent defense spending target.

Spain allocated nearly 1.3 percent of its GDP to defense in 2024, making it the alliance’s lowest spender.

US Force Posture in Europe

The Trump administration has reaffirmed its commitment to defending NATO allies in Europe, as U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Matthew Whitaker emphasized at a security conference in Estonia in May.

The recent nomination of U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich as NATO’s supreme allied commander Europe further signals continued U.S. support for nuclear deterrence in the region, according to the Brookings Institution experts.

At the same time, many expect a reduction in the U.S. military posture in Europe this summer.

A growing view among conservatives favors a smaller U.S. footprint in Europe and a strategic shift of forces and equipment toward the Indo-Pacific to counter China.

“Advocates of this idea view China as the greatest strategic threat to U.S. national security and contend that Europeans should assume primary responsibility for deterring Russia,” Goldgeier and Roehse wrote.

U.S. officials, including Whitaker, have hinted at a review of the U.S. force posture, with potential troop reductions possibly announced after the NATO summit.

“That looming announcement will be front and center,” Moller said. “Everyone will be watching closely for any signals about what, exactly, the Pentagon plans to pull from the European theater.”

Denmark and Greenland

Trump’s interaction with Frederiksen will be critical at this week’s summit, given her unease over Trump’s interest in taking over Greenland.

Trump may raise U.S. concerns about Greenland’s potential independence and the increasing influence of Russia and China in the Arctic.

For the past eight years, both the Trump and Biden administrations have expressed worries about Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, moving toward independence.

Despite Denmark’s status as a close NATO ally, the United States fears that Copenhagen’s influence over Greenland could wane if independence gains traction.

Rising Arctic activity, driven by warming trends, is intensifying competition and tensions.

A 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report estimates that the Arctic holds 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—about 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and gas reserves.

The region also contains trillions of dollars in minerals, including silver, copper, gold, nickel, iron ore, and rare earth elements.

The Chinese regime in recent years has been ambitiously developing its commercial and military capabilities in the Arctic.

In addition, Russian and Chinese warships are operating together more frequently in the region.

“I think the interaction between Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, and Donald Trump is something to watch for,” said Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Mette Frederiksen has not yet been to Washington, and there’s been a lot of strain in the bilateral relationship, and that is quite concerning because Denmark has been one of the most pro-American allies within NATO and within the European Union.”

Russia Sanctions

European allies are pressing Trump to follow through on his earlier threats to impose tough new sanctions on Russia because of the ongoing war in Ukraine.

In recent months, Trump had signaled a willingness to take a harder line against the Kremlin. But at the G7 summit, he appeared to backtrack, stating that “sanctions cost … a lot of money.”

He also criticized G7 leaders for expelling Russia in 2014 from the group, originally called the G8.

“This was a big mistake,“ Trump told Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during the G7 summit. ”You wouldn’t have that war. You have your enemy at the table.”

He also canceled a planned meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as he had to cut his trip short to focus on Iran.

Zelenskyy is expected to attend a state dinner in The Hague. And it is still unclear whether Trump will meet the Ukrainian president on the sidelines.

“I don’t think we’ll see any big announcements on Ukraine,” Moller said.

“The president’s priority remains to end the war by getting Moscow and Kyiv talking.

“Everything Washington is willing to put forward on Ukraine right now flows from that single objective, which means the administration isn’t prepared to offer more at this stage.”

Authored by Alex Wu via The Epoch Times,

As infighting within the top echelons of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intensifies, many China watchers are wondering if Chinese leader Xi Jinping is still in power and really in control, especially of the military.

According to long-standing CCP practice, a group of generals are promoted before Army Day on Aug. 1 every year. Since many generals were reported to have been taken down or investigated in an alleged military purge over the last year, whether Xi will promote any generals or announce new appointments before Aug. 1 has attracted attention as an indication of whether he’s still in control of the military.

Xu Qiliang, former vice chairman of the CCP’s Central Military Commission, the highest military leadership body of the communist regime, suddenly passed away on June 2, making him the latest casualty following a string of top CCP military officials who have encountered misfortunes, including sudden death, arrest, or simply disappearing.

Meanwhile, He Weidong, one of two vice chairmen of the Central Military Commission, whose status in the military is second only to the other vice chairman, Zhang Youxia, disappeared from the public eye on March 11 after the closing ceremony of the third session of the National People’s Congress. He is regarded as one of Xi’s most trusted men. There have been rumors coming out of Beijing that He was under investigation.

With this, some observers have speculated that Zhang is now in charge of the CCP’s military and that he stripped Xi’s power last year.

Since two other members of the Central Military Commission—Li Shangfu and Miao Hua—were successively brought down in the two years prior, if He’s absence is officially confirmed, the number of members of the Central Military Commission will drop from seven to four.

Who will fill these top military positions and who will replace the generals who have been pushed out is a focus for this year’s Army Day.

Generals in Prison Enough to Form a Military Company

In the past 13 years since Xi became CCP leader, he has launched waves of “anti-corruption” campaigns to purge his political enemies, many of whom were in the military, to consolidate his power.

“So much resentment has been accumulating for 13 years,” Su Tzu-yun, researcher and director of Division of Defense Strategy and Resources at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told the Chinese language Epoch Times on June 16. “The CCP’s internal struggle in the name of anti-corruption is more dangerous than a battlefield.”

But within one year from 2023 to 2024, the Chinese regime began to see purges, with 12 top PLA (People’s Liberation Army) officials removed in the name of “anti-corruption;” including Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe who were both former ministers of defense, three rocket force commanders, and one air force commander, and others.

In 2024, overseas Chinese media re-posted a now-deleted X post by China observer “Li Jun” listing the names and ranks of 101 top CCP military leaders who were put in jail. Li said there were enough individuals to form a military company, with 97 being at “general-level” alongside four more “colonel-level” cadres.

Su noted that all the senior military officials purged over the last year were previously promoted to their position by Xi.

“At present, it seems that only Zhang Youxia has the power to carry out the purge, and Xi Jinping may have become a rubber stamp, otherwise, not all of them would be people from Xi’s faction,” he said.

U.S.-based China affairs observer Tang Jingyuan shares the same assessment. He told the Epoch Times on June 16 that “not only this wave of the large-scale purge is almost entirely aimed at Xi Jinping’s cronies … those replacements are all people from Zhang Youxia’s faction,” while some positions after the purge remain vacant.

“This means there might have been a huge replacement and transfer of power in the CCP’s military,” Tang said. “Once control over the military is transferred, it means that the party leader’s power base has collapsed. So now, Xi Jinping may still be the top leader in name, but in fact, he has lost control of the highest power of the CCP.”

Shen Ming-shih, director of the Division of National Security Research at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told The Epoch Times on June 16 that such speculation is difficult to confirm as there is no public information about the power struggles within the CCP, and no way to get official clarification or proof of any internal strife either.

Soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army are seen before a giant screen as Chinese leader Xi Jinping speaks at the military parade marking the 70th founding anniversary of the regime in Beijing on Oct. 1, 2019. Jason Lee/Reuters

“It’s expressed entirely through vague information or vague language, and even deliberately uses such vague language to indicate who is in power or who has stepped down. It’s harder for the outside world to read these signs.”

Possible Personnel Changes by Army Day

U.S.-based China affairs commentator Chen Pokong told The Epoch Times that this year’s Army Day will be a major point to observe who will be promoted in the military and which faction they belong to.

“If they really want to add new members to the Central Military Commission on the Aug. 1 Army Day, they must be confirmed by the Fourth Plenary Session of the CCP’s Central Committee, which is definitely a big fight between the Xi faction and the anti-Xi faction.”

If new members are added, it will also show which faction has the upper hand in the CCP’s infighting, Chen said.

Shen said it remains unclear which exact dates the Fourth Plenary Session of the Central Committee will be held amid the rumors of a power struggle.

“If it is held before the end of June, the CCP’s general secretary or the Central Military Commission will have made the personnel arrangement to promote a group of generals before the Aug. 1 Army Day,” he said.

Insiders close to the regime’s top circle have leaked two possible dates for the top CCP political meeting. Well-known independent current affairs commentator Cai Shenqun cited a source within the regime saying that the Fourth Plenary Session will be held Aug. 27 to Aug. 30.

Meanwhile, Australia-based current affairs commentator Jiang Wangzheng has said that according to his source in China, the top meeting will be held on Oct. 13 to Oct. 16.

Chen said that the CCP’s personnel arrangements are opaque and that it has been very difficult for the various factions to reach an agreement.

“The internal struggles of the CCP’s top leaders may be far more fierce than the outside world imagines, and the CCP and its military are in a precarious state,” he said.

In the first operation of its kind in Florida, authorities have located over two dozen missing children during a multi-day rescue mission in Northeast Florida, according to Local 12.

The children, aged 7 to 17, had been missing from 10 days to more than a year. Over 30 local, state, and federal agencies participated in the joint effort.

Kevin Branzetti, CEO of the National Child Protection Taskforce, stressed the importance of follow-up care: “Finding the children is the first stage, but somebody has to listen to them and help them,” he told WFOX.

Branzetti also emphasized the long-term impact of the effort: “What’s occurring here isn’t just protecting these kids. It’s saving generations to come,” he said to WJAX.

Al Rollins, also with the taskforce, noted the emotional toll many children faced:
“In some cases, these kids were waiting for someone to show that they cared about them and show that they were looking for them,” he told WJAX.

Local 12 reports that Operation Light Shine, which supported the effort, posted on Instagram that “countless lives [were] forever changed” and called the week’s events “extraordinary.”

Clay County Sheriff’s Office representative Ron Lendvay explained that detectives brought their toughest unsolved cases to the operation:
“We all know that when kids run away, they’re either running to something or they’re running from something,” he said. “And what the intercept taskforce does is we go after those to give them something to run to or pull them away from their families.”

Each case is now being reviewed to determine whether human or sex trafficking was involved.

Authored by ‘Cynical Publius’ via American Greatness,

As the dust and smoke settle over Iran’s devastated nuclear weapons program, President Donald Trump’s method of waging war is coming into focus.

We had hints of what I call the “Trump Doctrine” in his first term as he annihilated ISIS in Syria, but the two-decade war in Afghanistan that he had inherited initially obscured what has now become a coherent doctrine. In his second term, the freedom of navigation attacks against Yemen’s Houthis were once again a hint of Trump’s way of war, but Saturday’s attack on Iran—and the events leading up to it—tell us much about the deliberate and precise manner in which Trump seeks to conduct American wars. Similar to (but different from) the famous “Powell Doctrine” promulgated by former Secretary of State Colin Powell (more on that later), the Trump Doctrine is the doctrine of a businessman serving his stockholders. Explained another way, the Trump Doctrine is the “Businessman’s Way of War.”

To preview succinctly, the Trump Doctrine consists of a series of business-like, iterative steps for all uses of American military force, and it performs as follows:

1. Identify America’s national interest.

2. Bargain with the prospective enemy.

3. If/when negotiations fail, conceal & misdirect.

4. Strike with precision and overwhelming force.

5. Achieve submission.

6. Bargain again (from a position of complete strength) with the defeated enemy.

I’ll now examine each of these escalating steps in detail.

“IDENTIFY AMERICA’S NATIONAL INTEREST.”

This first point is key in understanding the Trump Doctrine and how it differs from the Powell Doctrine. Both the Trump Doctrine and the Powell Doctrine focus on war as only being necessary when a vital American national interest is at stake, but the definition of that “interest” differs rather dramatically between the two doctrines. Whereas the Powell Doctrine allows for amorphous goals such as exporting democracy, the Trump Doctrine takes a fundamentally different approach—a businessman’s approach.

You see, Donald Trump, a man whose entire life until 2016 was focused on winning in business, does not view himself as President of a nation so much as he views himself as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of a very large business, and that business is the United States of America. As CEO and Chairman, he knows he has a fiduciary duty to his stockholders. (You, me, and every other American are his stockholders.) The company Trump leads is not a non-profit—his company has no purpose other than to profit the stockholders. Regime change, spreading democracy, and trying to implement American concepts of liberty are the altruistic purposes of a tax-free, non-profit entity. But Trump sees America as a for-profit, and no actions will be taken for any reason other than to profit the American stockholders, and ending the nuclear capability of an Iranian regime of medieval theocrats greatly serves that purpose.

“BARGAIN WITH THE PROSPECTIVE ENEMY.”

Donald Trump will never expend American blood and treasure when a deal can be made first. Unlike so many of his predecessors, he does not care much about the moral fiber of America’s prospective enemies; he only cares about benefiting his American stockholders. Thus, when he offered the crazed theocrats ruling Iran a chance to bargain, he meant it. Trump does not care how much the mullahs punish their own citizens; he only cares about his fiduciary duties to his stockholders. Had the mullahs decided to bring their nation to the nuclear negotiating table in good faith, no B-2 bombers would have flown over Iraq this past weekend.

“IF/WHEN NEGOTIATIONS FAIL, CONCEAL & MISDIRECT.”

Trump gave the mullahs a chance to bargain. They declined. Think about this in the same way as when a large, profitable public company seeks to buy a weaker, distressed private company by way of merger. The first step is to offer a deal that benefits both parties. That’s what good businessmen do. But when the weaker company refuses to strike a deal that is in its best interest, the CEO of the stronger company starts to plan a hostile takeover while hiding his intent, and that’s just what Trump did with Iran.

When Google wants to buy a hot, new artificial intelligence start-up, it does not tip its intent off to Apple, and in fact will publicly pretend it has no interest at all in buying the distressed target company.

Trump employed a similar strategy as he engaged in what is now obviously a deception plan, where Trump and Netanyahu publicly pretended they were at odds. Even at the last minute—while Pentagon OPSEC was airtight—the public message was that Air Force B-2s were headed to Guam, but that was only a deception plan to obscure their actual flight plan from Missouri. Business is often like war, except without actual bloodshed. CEO Trump knows this, and made the same deception play in Iran as he would in forcing the sale of a distressed casino to one of his real estate ventures.

“STRIKE WITH PRECISION AND OVERWHELMING FORCE.”

Like the Powell Doctrine, the Trump Doctrine calls for the total commitment of America’s most lethal capabilities in an overwhelming manner. Like the large public company bringing all of its financial assets and influence to bear against a distressed merger target running from an undesired acquisition, Trump employed never-before-used Massive Ordnance Penetrators, delivered by our untrackable B-2 bombers, with an aerial corridor opened by Navy and Air Force stealth aircraft, while sub-launched Tomahawk cruise missiles took out targets that did not need the deep underground attack of the MOPs. Overwhelming military force is the way to defeat America’s enemies, just as overwhelming financial capabilities and business strategies ensure a powerful company controls the market against its competitors.

“ACHIEVE SUBMISSION.”

This is where the Trump Doctrine deviates most significantly from the Powell Doctrine. The lynchpin of the Powell Doctrine is achieving an “exit strategy.” An “exit strategy” is amorphous, and the enemy gets a vote. What was our exit strategy in Afghanistan? Tribal leaders who finally decided a democracy and personal liberty were the way to govern Afghanistan? Was the exit strategy in Iraq a sort of multi-ethnic republic with a constitution like our own? These goals were wishful thinking and led to 20+ years of useless, endless wars. President Trump sees “exit strategies” differently—he sees them as complete and total submission of the enemy.

To borrow a term from popular culture, Trump demands our foes “bend the knee,” and he will settle for nothing less.

Like the businessman he is, Trump expects his competitors to submit to his company’s will or cease to exist. As Trump said in his speech last Saturday night, “There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days.

This is not an “exit strategy.” This is a demand for complete and total submission. Importantly, Trump planned our attacks on Iran’s nuclear capabilities realizing that total submission was possible, and he would never have launched the attacks if total submission was not on the menu. That is a sea change from our recent history of complex geopolitical “exit strategies.” Trump’s exit strategy is simply complete and total submission, and nothing less. His stockholders deserve as much.

“BARGAIN AGAIN (FROM A POSITION OF COMPLETE STRENGTH) WITH THE DEFEATED ENEMY.”

This is another area that is separate and distinct from the Powell Doctrine, and from all American wars since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Like the businessman he is, Trump sees war as a means to force our enemies to the negotiating table to give us what we want. Democracy? LGBTQ+ rights? Capitalism? Trump does not care. He only cares about what tangibly benefits his stockholders. When Trump says, “But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed, and skill,” he implies that negotiations can create peace. The B-2 strikes also serve to bring the mullahs to the negotiating table. If they acquiesce, they survive. If they do not, they die.

Additionally, Trump sees the deployment of U.S. forces as creating second- and third-order effects. Did China get the message? Will Russia stop giving arms to Iran if we agree to stop arming Ukraine? Every action Trump takes has deep meaning, and often outside the obvious scope of military objectives. This, too, is a businessman’s approach to war, and differs greatly from the standards of other recent presidents. If an action can influence your company’s competitors to act in your best interest, that is an action that must be taken.

At some point, every American enemy will realize that you must give Donald Trump what he wants, or he will destroy you. Military force as a negotiating tool is a new concept in American warfare, and I like it.

The Trump Doctrine provides for six steps to a new way of war. The Spanish-American War was the last war America ever fought for any reason other than to benefit the stockholders. Woodrow Wilson brought America into World War I to make the world “Safe for Democracy,” and for over a century, that has been America’s guiding wartime light. Yes, that was necessary and proper in World War II, but as a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know that most of the world today does not want democracy, and wasting American lives to achieve such an objective is futile. I vastly prefer a war that benefits America’s stockholders, and hopefully, all future presidents will know that the Trump Doctrine is the best method of serving America’s national interests.

Thank you, President Trump, for realigning America’s military mission into something that best serves the American people.

Cynical Publius is the nom de plume of a retired U.S. Army colonel and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, who is now a practicing mergers and acquisitions corporate law attorney. He believes the confluence of his experiences fighting wars and fighting business acquisitions has shown him Donald Trump’s way of war. You can follow Cynical Publius on X at @CynicalPublius.

*  *  *

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

As rents skyrocket and the cost of living keeps climbing, a new study from Highland Cabinetry aims to answer a simple but critical question: are America’s most expensive cities actually worth it? Spoiler: not really.

The study analyzed a wide range of metrics — including housing costs, income, safety, traffic, pollution, and unemployment — using data from sources like the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Zillow. The goal? To identify the cities where people are paying a premium and getting a whole lot of hassle in return.

Newark, NJ claimed the dubious honor of being the most overpriced city in the U.S., earning a perfect — and in this case, perfectly awful — score of 100, according to Highland Cabinetry. 

Living here will cost you over $5,100 a month, and for what? A safety index barely above 24, one of the worst in the country. Median household income is a modest $53,818, far below cities with similar costs. If you want the luxury of paying big-city prices for small-city problems, Newark’s got you covered.

Coming in hot at number two is New York City, which scored 98.17. It has the highest real estate price tag in the country — a staggering $18,402 per square foot in the city center. But with its famously clogged streets, questionable safety (index: 49.16), and a median income lower than in L.A. or D.C., you’re not exactly getting what you pay for. As the report shows, “Cost of living alone doesn’t define the value of a city.”

Los Angeles lands third with a score of 96.33. It boasts the worst traffic of any city in the study (index: 312.53), paired with high pollution and $7,500-a-square-foot housing. Sure, the average income is decent, but residents are choking on smog and spending hours stuck in gridlock.

At number four is Detroit, which proves that even cheaper real estate — a mere $1,067 per square foot — can’t save a city from this list. The city struggles with low safety (index: 26.86), bottom-of-the-barrel incomes ($38,080), and significant unemployment. It scores 94.5, mostly for failing to offer value even at lower prices.

Wilmington, DE rounds out the top five. With housing at over $3,000 per square foot and incomes hovering just above $50K, residents are paying luxury prices for a middle-tier lifestyle. The city scores 92.67, weighed down by high costs and underwhelming returns.

The Highland Cabinetry study shows that Washington, D.C. comes in at number six, scoring 90.83. It’s the most expensive city on the list for overall living costs — nearly $6,800 a month — but offers underwhelming safety (index: 39.86) and a daily grind of traffic and pollution. Even with six-figure average incomes, the experience doesn’t exactly scream “value.”

Chicago is next at number seven. With a score of 89, the Windy City offers decent earnings ($74,474) but drags itself down with poor safety, a 5.3% unemployment rate — the worst on the list — and the kind of expenses that make you question whether deep-dish pizza is worth it.

Houston takes the eighth spot, scoring 87.17. While more affordable than many of its peers, its air quality is poor, incomes are low ($41,142), and safety isn’t much to brag about. It’s the classic case of lower costs not necessarily equaling better living.

At number nine is San Francisco, where the dream of tech riches collides with reality. With housing prices over $11,000 per square foot and sky-high monthly expenses, the city scores just 85.33. Despite high incomes, residents deal with heavy traffic, mediocre safety, and significant pollution. In short: you’ll pay a lot, and you’ll suffer plenty.

Finally, Miami rounds out the list at number ten with a score of 83.5. While its safety and air quality beat many cities higher on the list, incomes don’t stretch nearly far enough to justify the $4,100+ monthly costs. Fun in the sun comes at a price — and for many, it’s too steep.

As a spokesperson for Highland Cabinetry put it: “Cost of living alone doesn’t define the value of a city. What our data shows is that several high-cost urban areas come with serious trade-offs, whether it’s long commutes, safety issues, or environmental stress. For many residents, the price tag isn’t the only consideration — it’s what that money gets you. And in many cases, the return on investment just isn’t there.”