The AI Threat SciFi Predicted Is Right On Our Doorstep

Authored by Mike Fredenburg via The Epoch Times,

Science Fiction has long predicted the threats and challenges posed by AI. In the Star Trek universe, particularly in the original series, Season Two, Episode 24, “The Ultimate Computer,” Dr. Leonard McCoy delivers this haunting line: “Compassion: that’s the one thing no machine ever had. Maybe it’s the one thing that keeps men ahead of them.” The line comes in the aftermath of a revolutionary new AI computer, the M5, using its soulless AI logic to turn a training exercise into a deadly massacre. In another Star Trek episode, we meet Nomad, a genocidal AI cleansing the universe of biological imperfections.  

Foreshadowing the rise of AI with immense hacking powers such as Anthropic’s Mythos, the reimagined “Battlestar Galactica” (2003–2009) has humanity’s AI-powered Cylons using their ability to hack any network-connected computer to rebel, nearly eradicating their creators. In the “Terminator” franchise, Skynet got “smart” (achieved sentience) and determined mankind’s fate, “extermination,“ in a ”microsecond,” unleashing nuclear Armageddon on humanity. These narratives warn that artificial intelligence, without robust safeguards, can lead to catastrophe. As AI capabilities continue to accelerate in 2026, fiction is rapidly converging with reality. Software protections, industry standards, and patchwork regulations are inadequate. A stronger foundation; immutable hardware constructs and changes in national and international law are essential.

Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics 

As described in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers’ Spectrum magazine, renowned scientist and science fiction writer Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics, introduced in his “I, Robot” stories, provide a thoughtful framework for artificial intelligence safeguards:

1. A robot may not injure an individual human or humanity, or through inaction allow a human or humanity to come to harm. 

2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 

3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. 

Long story short, Asimov’s Laws are a good starting point, but as described in great detail in Asimov’s follow-on masterwork, the Foundation Series, they are inadequate when it comes to protecting genuine humanness. Further, it will be a real challenge to hardwire equivalents into AI as was done in Asimov’s universe via the “Positronic” brain. But undertaking the challenge to create safeguards that go beyond software-based approaches is critical to ensuring that AI only benefits mankind.

The Inadequacy of Software Safeguards, Encryption, and Regulation Alone 

Software-based guardrails are modifiable and vulnerable to hacks and exploits.

And history demonstrates the fragility of self-regulation: the Equifax data breach (2017), the SolarWinds supply chain attack (2020), the MOVEit vulnerability (2023), and ongoing breaches show that corporate promises of “robust protections” frequently fail.

We are in an AI Wild West, with insufficient binding global or national frameworks.

True Protection Via Immutable Hardware Gatekeepers

History demonstrates that software-based safeguards cannot currently, and will never be able to provide the level of protection required. As inspired by Asimov’s Positronic brain, safeguards instantiated into ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) will provide a critical layer that provides the guardrails that will increase the chances that AI benefits, rather than harms, mankind. These specialized chips take millions of lines of complex software logic or rules that are physically etched directly into the silicon hardware itself. Once the chip is manufactured and deployed, those rules become immutable: they cannot be altered, updated, or bypassed through software changes, patches, or hacking attempts. The only way to modify the embedded logic is to design and physically produce an entirely new ASIC chip, a process that is expensive, time-consuming, and highly visible. This creates a “hardware firewall” that is far more reliable than any software-based safeguard, ensuring critical safety constraints remain locked in place no matter how clever or aggressive future AI systems become.

The ASICs will act as physically fixed, inline gatekeepers. And in the future, both AI-focused and general-purpose processors could incorporate these tiny ASICs directly into the CPU as a hardware AI screening layer as a standard, non-optional part of the CPU.

Some Suggested Core Design Principles:

• With the hardware layer acting as the interface to external interactions, such as is the case with some smartphones today, the AI can freely think, plan, and simulate in software without being slowed down by the ASIC. Only when the results are being communicated externally will the ASIC become involved as a gatekeeper to ensure that the actions proposed by the AI pass muster in terms of safety and other constraints.

• Training Incentives: Cost/loss-based algorithms, etc., will reward the AI for routing actions through the hardware screener and severely penalize it for attempting to bypass the hardware gatekeeper layer. Hence, the AI will be incentivized not to try to bypass its restrictions. 

But such an important layer will only work if its use becomes universal.

Without the force of law to mandate such AI guardrails, they will fail to protect humanity.

Today, particularly in the Ukraine–Russia war, efforts are being made by both Russia and Ukraine to allow drones that have been cut off from their human operators to autonomously continue their mission to kill enemy combatants. This must not be tolerated. Just as the international community has banned chemical, biological, and gas warfare, so must AI be banned from making any final decisions that result in harm to humans. This could be accomplished via an explicit update to the Geneva Conventions to prohibit autonomous lethal decision-making by AI systems.

But AI can cause harm beyond the battlefield. Consequently, along with updating the Geneva Convention, laws must be put in place that address the non-military application of AI. To prevent misuse of AI in so-called civilian applications, there must be very serious consequences, including financial penalties steep enough to threaten the organizational viability of companies and non-profits, prison time for individuals, and economic sanctions or even military action against governments for running AI systems without the required immutable hardware safety layer and other protections.

The above is only an initial cut of what the framework should include, but whatever form it takes, it should embody the spirit of Asimov’s Three Laws, with the addition of ensuring human uniqueness is respected. The current patchwork of laws, standards, and technologies is wholly inadequate.We need a comprehensive, contiguous framework in place, supported by the full force of national and international laws that put guardrails on AI.

Finally, we must resist the siren call of convenience and efficiency when it comes to making decisions that can harm human beings and ensure that moral agents who are accountable to mankind and their Creator—i.e., human beings—make such decisions, not soulless AIs.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 23:05

China Revives Heavy Naval Firepower With New 155mm Gun That "Could Support An Attack On Taiwan"

As modern naval combat increasingly relies on aircraft, missiles and unmanned systems, China is investing in a capability many navies have largely moved away from: heavy naval artillery, according to South China Morning Post.

Recent reports indicate that the PLA Navy is testing a new 155mm naval gun, a calibre larger than any main gun currently in active naval service. The weapon has been observed aboard the experimental vessel Wu Yunduo, which appears to have completed a round of sea trials near Dalian earlier this year. Such testing would typically assess accuracy, fire-control performance, platform stability and the weapon’s ability to sustain repeated firing under operational conditions.

The gun first attracted attention in 2024 when a prototype was photographed during transport. Information visible on the system suggested it was manufactured by Norinco, weighs nearly 22 tonnes and can fire precision-guided ammunition. Images released later showed the weapon installed on a test ship, with a turret design that appears intended to reduce radar visibility.

The SCMP writes that the project stands out because large-calibre naval guns have long been overshadowed by missiles and carrier aviation. For decades, navies have favoured weapons capable of striking targets far beyond the horizon with greater precision. As a result, ship guns have largely been relegated to supporting troops ashore or handling limited surface engagements.

China’s interest in reviving heavy naval gunfire appears closely tied to amphibious warfare. In any large-scale landing operation, sustained bombardment of coastal defences could be essential. Compared with missiles, naval artillery can deliver a much higher volume of fire at significantly lower cost, making it useful for suppressing defensive positions and supporting advancing forces.

Analysts note that a 155mm system would represent a substantial increase in capability over the PLA Navy’s existing 130mm guns carried by its most advanced destroyers. Depending on the ammunition used, the new weapon could potentially engage targets more than 100km away and perhaps even beyond 200km. Operating at such distances would require support from drones or other reconnaissance assets to locate targets, assess damage and correct fire.

Economics may be just as important as range. Precision missiles remain expensive, particularly when used against relatively low-value targets. A naval gun can provide sustained firepower at a fraction of the cost, making it attractive for coastal bombardment, suppression missions and prolonged operations. Additional savings could come from sharing ammunition and logistics with the PLA Army’s existing family of 155mm artillery systems, which already includes guided, rocket-assisted and extended-range projectiles.

The US Navy’s experience offers a contrasting example. Although its Zumwalt-class destroyers were equipped with 155mm guns, the programme struggled because specialised long-range ammunition became prohibitively expensive, ultimately leading to the guns’ replacement with missile-focused systems.

China has not revealed which ships may eventually carry the new weapon. Amphibious vessels are considered strong candidates because their current armament is relatively limited when it comes to shore bombardment. Installing a larger gun could significantly improve fire-support capabilities during expeditionary or landing operations.

The weapon may also have applications beyond attacking land targets. Military observers suggest it could be used against drone swarms, unmanned surface vessels and other emerging threats when paired with specialised ammunition. In lower-intensity missions, it could provide a cost-effective alternative to missiles for maritime patrol, anti-piracy operations, warning shots and the interception of non-compliant vessels.

While China continues to develop advanced technologies such as railguns and laser weapons, the new 155mm system reflects a more practical approach: enhancing naval firepower with a mature, proven technology that can be fielded relatively quickly and integrated into existing military logistics networks.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 22:10

Are Banks More Powerful Than Governments?

Authored by Mollie Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Government is big. Elected and unelected officials wield enormous amounts of power. But lately I have found myself wondering whether we are paying attention to the wrong institution.

What if the most powerful institutions in America are not governments at all?

What if they are banks and payment processors?

A few years ago, during COVID-19, a friend of mine owned a small shop in Northern California. It was the kind of place many young mothers loved. They sold raw milk, organic cotton sheets, natural baby products, books, toys, and healthy foods. It felt like an old-fashioned mercantile reimagined for modern families.

One day, she made a comment on social media praising CBD. I do not remember the exact wording, but it was something along the lines of, “Of course, we can raise children without CBD, but why would we want to?”

Whether you think CBD is wonderful or terrible is beside the point. The issue is not whether she was right. The issue is whether she had the right to say it.

Not long afterward, her credit card processing company terminated her account.

The company processing her payments had nothing to do with the social media platform where she made the comment. Yet somehow, a statement made on one platform became a problem for an entirely different company that controlled her ability to process payments.

The fallout was immediate. Roughly $30,000 was frozen. She struggled to make payroll. Because the company handled other operational functions as well, portions of her business became difficult to run. It took months of legal back and forth before she finally regained access to her own money.

When this happened, I called my own credit card processing representative. Before I could even finish explaining the situation, he knew exactly what I was talking about.

He told me he had been flooded with calls from businesses looking to switch processors because similar things were happening across the country. Businesses were scrambling to regain access to money they believed was theirs.

It was part of a broader pattern that many people have already forgotten.

During COVID-19, I lost count of the number of conferences, organizations, and educational programs that suddenly found themselves unable to process payments or fundraising. Then came the Canadian trucker protests. Regardless of where someone stood politically, a lot of people suddenly realized that modern power does not always arrive wearing a government uniform. Sometimes it arrives as an email informing you that access to financial services has been suspended.

What concerns me is that all of this happened before we have even become a truly cashless society.

Last weekend, I was in Austin speaking at an event for the Brownstone Institute. As I walked around the city, I noticed a surprising number of businesses no longer accepted cash.

The answers were remarkably consistent. Cash creates more work. Cash can be stolen. Cash requires counting. Cash requires bank deposits. Cash slows things down. Cash creates security concerns for employees.

These are all legitimate concerns. In fact, I understand them better than most people because I have lived them.

My brother owns restaurants in California and has chosen to operate cashless businesses. His reasoning is efficiency. Most business owners making these decisions are trying to reduce theft, simplify accounting, and protect employees. The incentives are understandable.

That is what makes this conversation so interesting.

Rarely do we lose freedom because someone announces they are taking it away. More often, we surrender small pieces of it because convenience, safety, and efficiency seem like fair trade-offs in the moment.

I found myself standing in one Austin business that displayed signs supporting inclusion, immigrant rights, and various social justice causes. I asked the young man behind the counter a simple question.

“If we are concerned about making society accessible to everyone, why require a bank account, a smartphone, a QR code, and a digital payment platform just to buy a cup of coffee?”

He looked genuinely surprised.

After thinking about it for a moment, he said, “Maybe you’re right.”

What struck me was not his answer. It was that the question had never occurred to him.

For all of our conversations about equity and access, we seem remarkably comfortable building systems that increasingly exclude anyone operating outside the banking system. Elderly people, recent immigrants, people who simply value privacy, and those who rely on cash all find themselves pushed a little further to the margins each year.

Most of us have enormous faith in the numbers displayed on our banking apps. We treat those numbers as though they are unquestionably ours, and most of the time they are.

But the people who had accounts frozen, payment processing terminated, or funds held during COVID-19 learned something the rest of us rarely think about. Access to your money increasingly depends on institutions you do not control.

We spent years arguing about who could post what online. Meanwhile, the institutions with the power to deny access to money received far less attention.

What is interesting is that while many businesses are moving away from cash, I am seeing people experiment with other forms of exchange.

At Sovereignty Ranch and The Barn, guests have paid in silver. We have accepted retreat deposits in silver coins. We have accepted festival sponsorships in silver. We also maintain cryptocurrency wallets and have accepted crypto payments.

Is it a large percentage of our business?

But it happens often enough that we added a silver calculator to our point-of-sale system and maintain the apps necessary to accept cryptocurrency.

People are quietly looking for options. Not because they necessarily distrust every bank or financial institution, but because they understand something previous generations understood instinctively. Resilience comes from having choices.

I am not arguing that cash is the only answer. In fact, I think there is value in preserving as many forms of voluntary exchange as possible.

A society with multiple ways to exchange value is more resilient than a society dependent on a single system.

What concerns me is not that people are using digital payments. I use them every day myself. What concerns me is that we are building a world where opting out becomes impossible.

The issue is not whether any particular form of money is perfect. The issue is whether we preserve enough alternatives that no single institution becomes the gatekeeper of economic life.

Because once every transaction requires an intermediary, power shifts. Once every purchase is digital, oversight becomes easier. Once every dollar exists inside systems controlled by institutions we did not elect, freedom begins to look a little different than we thought it did.

Maybe the most important lesson from those years is not about any particular company, politician, virus, or policy.

Freedom rarely disappears all at once. More often, it erodes through a series of reasonable justifications, emergencies, and conveniences.

Looking back, many of the things that happened during COVID-19 would have seemed unimaginable just a few years earlier. Yet they happened anyway.

That is why I think it is important that we do not forget.

Not because we should live in anger. Not because we should endlessly relitigate the past. But because freedom requires memory. The moment we forget what happened, we lose our ability to recognize it when it happens again.

We spend a great deal of time worrying about government power, and some of that concern is justified. But I increasingly wonder if we are overlooking institutions that possess just as much influence over our daily lives.

If an institution can freeze your money, deny your transactions, shut down your business, and exclude you from economic life, does it really matter whether that institution is a government agency or a financial corporation?

And if it does not, are banks actually the most powerful institutions in modern America?

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:45

New Oregon Initiative Would Criminalize Hunting, Fishing And Farming

Only 1% of the American population identifies as vegan (a person who refrains from using or consuming any animal products), and around 3% of the population identifies as vegetarian.  It is therefore a little confusing as to why American political and social discourse is hijacked by vegan issues so often. 

Leftist activists have adopted the age-old mantra that the "squeaky wheel gets the oil"; but imagine a wheel that never gets enough oil?  Imagine a movement specifically designed to keep society constantly on egg shells, trying to figure out different ways to satisfy that squeaky wheel so it will finally shut up?

One eventually has to ask the obvious question:  Why don't we simply throw that insufferable wheel in the garbage?

A perfect example of why Americans need to start aggressively discriminating against veganism as a movement has popped up in Oregon.  A new initiative called the PEACE Act (IP28) has enough backing to make it on the state ballot in November.  The initiative originally gained support as a way to "end animal cruelty", but the details of the proposed law turned out to be a vegan's version of Orwell.  

The petition has more than 120,000 signatures, according to the Oregon secretary of state’s office. The campaign needs about 117,000 valid signatures to make the ballot.  Initiative Petition 28 would expand animal cruelty protections in Oregon by effectively giving “all” animals the same protections currently in place for dogs and cats, supporters say. Opponents argue the measure would go much further, potentially criminalizing hunting, fishing and raising animals for food.

It's important to understand that vegan activists and leftists in general do not operate from a basic understanding of the environment.  They know next to nothing about the science behind these issues and legislate from a purely emotional position.  Banning hunting would effectively destroy various wild animal populations, causing disastrous disease outbreaks that the hunting community has kept in check for decades.    

That said, a lot of attention in the media has been paid to the hunting side of this law while the biggest impact would be felt in cattle farming and the fishing industry in Oregon.  If passed, the law would effectively criminalize the entire meat production base for the state under "animal cruelty" statutes. 

No state has the capacity to sustain on a mass vegan diet, so, animal products would have to be shipping in from the rest of the country, driving up prices.   

Of course, this tiny minority of militant animal rights activists are not working alone.  They are able to thrive and organize because they have a host of international NGOs and politicians working with them.  These institutions act as amplifiers for activist groups that would otherwise go completely ignored.  The United Nations, for example, has long been involved in global efforts to remove meat from the menu for most of the human population.

The UN fabricated the notion of animal agriculture acting as a primary mechanism for greenhouse gases and global warming.  Of course, there is zero evidence of a causation or correlation relationship between animal methane and changes in the Earth's temperatures, just as there is no concrete evidence of a connection between human industry and climate change. 

One can speculate as to why the UN is so interested in eliminating meat from the human diet, but stopping global warming is certainly not the real reason.  

Global warming claims continues to be debunked as one of the biggest hoaxes of the century, and the idea of compelling the public to stop eating meat in the name of "saving the climate" just isn't going to work.  It would appear that the political left and their NGO backers intend to criminalize meat if they can't convince people to go vegan voluntarily.   

This is why the majority of Americans distrust and despise vegans:  It not because they've chosen a different lifestyle, it's because they are obsessed with forcing that lifestyle on everyone else.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 21:20

Will Trump Break JFK's Agreement On Cuba?

Authored by Jacob Hornberger via The Future of Freedom Foundation,

In October 1962, the United States and the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) came within an inch of all-out nuclear war with each other. To resolve the crisis, President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev entered into an agreement in which the United States agreed not to invade Cuba in return for Russia’s decision to withdraw nuclear missiles it had installed in Cuba.

For more than 50 years, both Russia and the United States have complied with that agreement.

Russia has never re-installed nuclear missiles into Cuba.

In turn, the United States has never re-invaded Cuba.

Given President Trump’s recent acts of aggression against Cuba, the question naturally arises: Will Trump and the U.S. national-security establishment break the commitment that President Kennedy made by initiating another military invasion of Cuba?

Soon after Kennedy was inaugurated in 1961, the U.S. national-security branch of the federal government, which, by this time, had become the most powerful branch, employed deception, subterfuge, lies, and manipulation to induce the new president into authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The plan called for using a contingent of CIA-trained Cuban exiles to invade the island, with the aim of ousting the communist regime that had come into power with the Cuban revolution in 1959.

The CIA told Kennedy that no U.S. air support would be needed. They also told him that the Cuban people hated Cuban leader Fidel Castro and would rise to the assistance of the U.S. invaders.

Both were lies, and the CIA knew it was lying to Kennedy. The CIA figured that once its invasion got underway and was going to go down to defeat at the hands of the communists, JFK would have no other effective choice but to authorize the air support — as a way to “save face.”

But JFK stood his ground, and the U.S. invasion of Cuba went down to defeat. This was, of course, the beginning of the vicious and ruthless war between JFK and the U.S. national-security establishment that would end in JKF’s defeat on November 22, 1963. See FFF’s book JFK’s War with the National-Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas P. Horne, who served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board in the 1990s.

After the disaster of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Pentagon continued to pressure Kennedy into ordering an invasion of Cuba. As part of this pressure, the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented JFK with one of the most shameful and immoral plans in U.S. history — Operation Northwoods. It called for terrorist attacks on American soil in which innocent Americans would be intentionally sacrificed at the hands of U.S. agents who would be falsely portraying themselves as Cuban communists. The terrorist attacks would then be used as a justification for invading Cuba and violently achieving regime change.

To Kennedy’s everlasting credit, he rejected Operation Northwoods, much to the deep anger and rage of the national-security branch against which he was at war.

Why was the national-security branch so obsessed with invading Cuba? Their mindset was part of their old Cold War racket, which came into existence after World War II to justify the conversion of the federal government from a limited-government republic to a national-security state, which is a totalitarian-like governmental structure with omnipotent powers, including the power of assassination.

The Cold War racket involved inculcating the American people with a deep fear that the Reds were coming to get them. Central to this racket was the notion that the Reds in Cuba were only 90 miles away from American shores and, therefore, needed to be taken out before they invaded Miami, fought their way up the Eastern seaboard, and captured Washington, D.C. Never mind that Cuba was an impoverished Third World Country that lacked the remotest capability of even crossing that little stretch of water and successfully conquering the well-armed citizens of Miami. Never mind also that Cuba has never initiated any act of aggression against the United States and that it simply has always wanted to be left alone by the U.S. national-security branch, which has always steadfastly and obsessively refused to leave Cuba alone.

Castro knew that the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA were pressuring Kennedy into ordering another invasion of Cuba. That’s when the Russians came to his assistance. They installed nuclear missiles in Cuba to hopefully deter the U.S. from invading again. Alternatively, the missiles were to serve as a means of self-defense if the U.S. were to initiate another war of aggression against Cuba.

It’s important to recognize something important here: The Cubans had every right in the world to have those nuclear missiles installed in Cuba. After all, Cuba is a sovereign and independent country. It is also worth noting that Cuba, like every other nation, has the right to defend itself from invasions and wars of aggression, including those initiated by the United States.

But no one (including Russia), likes to have nuclear missiles pointed at it from just a short distance away. The U.S. certainly didn’t like it (just as Russia wouldn’t like it if U.S. or NATO nuclear missiles were installed in Ukraine). And so, JFK demanded that the Russians withdraw their missiles from Cuba. If Russia had refused to do so, it is a virtual certainty that JFK would have ordered an attack on the missiles and an invasion of Cuba, both of which the Pentagon and the CIA were demanding. The result would have been World War III.

To resolve the crisis, Russia agreed to withdraw its missiles, and the U.S. committed to not invade Cuba again. It’s an agreement that has been honored for more than 60 years.

Of course, Trump, the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA can argue that the agreement, which they considered was a betrayal of America and a grave threat to U.S. “national security” was not a treaty. That’s true. It was simply an oral agreement — a handshake, if you will. Nonetheless, an agreement is an agreement. There was no time limit on the agreement, which meant that it would exist into perpetuity. The Russians would not reinstall their nuclear missiles and the United States would not invade Cuba again.

If Trump and U.S. national-security establishment decide to break JFK’s agreement, undoubtedly the Russians will not retaliate. But it will be another reason why people around the world understand that the United States can never be trusted to keep its word.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:55

Majority Of Arrested ICE Protesters At Newark's Delaney Hall Came From Outside New Jersey

Arrest records from recent demonstrations outside Newark’s Delaney Hall immigration detention facility show that many of those taken into custody were not New Jersey residents, according to The New York Post. According to information reviewed by The Post, only a small number of the arrested individuals were from the state, while others had traveled from locations including Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, and New York.

The arrests stemmed from a series of confrontations between protesters and law enforcement that took place during ongoing demonstrations at the facility. Authorities accused some participants of offenses such as damaging property, obstructing access to the detention center, failing to disperse, and assaulting federal officers. The demonstrations have drawn national attention as activists continue to challenge immigration enforcement policies and conditions at the facility.

Observers critical of the protests argue that the presence of participants from across the country suggests a coordinated effort rather than a purely local movement. They point to the involvement of activist organizations that have publicly campaigned against Delaney Hall and called for broader changes to federal immigration enforcement. Some arrested individuals were linked through social media activity to groups that have promoted protests at the site and encouraged supporters to participate.

The Post notes that among those arrested were people from a variety of personal and professional backgrounds, including students, artists, healthcare professionals, and longtime activists. Publicly available information and social media profiles indicate that several had previously participated in political or social justice campaigns on issues ranging from climate activism to racial justice and immigration reform.

One organization frequently mentioned in connection with the demonstrations is the Sunrise Movement, a progressive activist group that has publicized its involvement in actions outside Delaney Hall. The group has shared updates, photos, and videos from the protests on social media and has described its organizers as being actively engaged at the site for an extended period.

Supporters of the demonstrations maintain that the protests are a response to concerns about the treatment of detainees and conditions inside the facility. Critics, however, contend that the protests have become increasingly confrontational and have been supported by well-funded activist networks capable of mobilizing participants from outside the region.

The standoff at Delaney Hall has continued for weeks, with repeated clashes between demonstrators and law enforcement. As investigations and legal proceedings move forward, the arrests have become part of a broader debate over immigration policy, protest tactics, and the role of national activist organizations in local political conflicts.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:30

Radical Woke Mount Sinai Hospital Exposed: DEI, Child Sex Changes & Epstein Ties Prioritized Over Patients

Authored by Tate Rosentreter via The Center Square;

Consumer protection organization Consumers’ Research began a campaign Monday highlighting New York City-based nonprofit Mount Sinai Hospital's prioritization of what Consumers' calls the hospital's woke and political ideology as well as having what it says are questionable partnerships such as ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

Executive director of Consumers’ Research Will Hild told The Center Square that “Mount Sinai is another example of a nonprofit hospital that has seemingly abandoned its core mission of patient care in favor of a radical political agenda.”

“The hospital has a history of prioritizing radical causes like DEI, child sex-change procedures, and climate activism, and has maintained a deeply troubling and disturbing relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, accepting donations and giving him special access to doctors and hospital resources,” Hild said.

“This behavior by nonprofit health systems like Mount Sinai should be investigated for supporting these political agendas at taxpayers' expense,” Hild said.

Hild told The Center Square that “Consumers’ Research is exposing nonprofit hospitals for using taxpayer dollars and federal revenue streams and benefits to put politics over patients.”

“Taxpayers and elected officials need to be aware that health systems are misusing their resources and these practices need to be examined by lawmakers,” Hild said.

Mount Sinai media relations has not yet responded to The Center Square’s request for comment.

Included in Consumers’ Research’s campaign are a mobile billboard circling the Mount Sinai campus, a website, and “targeted digital around Capitol Hill.”

The mobile billboard displays statements such as Mount Sinai “performed over 130 sex change procedures on kids,” “provides transgender resources for 8-year-olds,” and has ties to Epstein.

Consumers’ Research’s website campaign goes further in depth, showcasing the hospital’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, transgender ideology promotion, climate activism and “questionable partnerships.”

According to the campaign, Mount Sinai operates an Office for Health Data, Outcomes, and Engagement Strategy “to promote health equity cultural awareness.”

Additionally, the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Institute for Health Equity Research “hosted ‘conversations on health equity,’” the campaign revealed.

As far as promoting transgender ideology goes, Mount Sinai’s Keith Haring Youth Gender Center provides care for “transgender and gender diverse youth.

Additionally, the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery “offers hormone therapy, transgender intervention surgeries, and other services for transgender patients,” Consumers’ Research campaign stated, while transgender resources are provided by Mount Sinai to children “as young as 8-years-old.”

From 2019 to 2023, Mount Sinai performed 139 sex change interventions on minors, according to Do No Harm’s database and Consumers’ Research’s campaign.

As mentioned, Mount Sinai is also involved in climate activism with a statement on its webpage entitled “Sustain Mount Sinai” stating: “Reducing our carbon footprint is not just an operational goal; it is an essential part of building a healthier future.”

Consumers’ Research campaign also outlines Mount Sinai’s “concerning, longstanding” relationship with convicted sex offender Epstein, beginning in 2008 when “after his sex crime conviction, Epstein donated at least $250,000 to Mount Sinai and sponsored various events and projects.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 20:05

Iranian Tankers Cross US Naval Blockade After Trump Deal Allows Iran To Restart Oil Sales

The first Iranian ships crossed the area of the US naval blockade without obstruction after a memorandum of understanding was reached to end the war between Washington and Tehran, Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency reported Tuesday.

At least three Iranian oil tankers and two cargo ships carrying essential goods broke through the US naval blockade following an accord between the countries. 

A large Iranian VLCC and another vessel used to transport livestock moved from open waters toward Iranian ports, the agency said. Another Iranian tanker carrying oil also crossed the Gulf of Oman toward its designated export port, Fars said, without providing further details about the destination.

BREAKING: CRUDE OIL DEPARTS IRAN FOLLOWING A TWO MONTH LONG NAVY BLOCKADE

According to AIS data which we corroborated yesterday (2026-06-15) by satellite imagery, at least two National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) VLCC supertankers named DIONA (9569695) and HERO2 (9362073) have… pic.twitter.com/tSesQTcC6K

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) June 16, 2026

The crossing followed a WSJ report that under the agreement expected to formally end the war between the United States and Iran on Friday, Tehran would be allowed to immediately resume oil and fuel sales. The sanctions relief takes effect as soon as the agreement is signed and extends beyond crude exports to include the banking, shipping, and insurance services needed to move those barrels to market.

That detail may prove to be one of the most consequential parts of the entire agreement.

Oil sanctions are only effective if buyers can't pay, tankers can't ship, and insurers won't touch the cargo. By waiving restrictions across the entire supply chain, Washington is effectively giving Iran access to international energy markets from day one rather than months down the road, according to OilPrice.com.

Iran holds some of the world's largest oil and gas reserves and was producing well over 3 million barrels per day before the conflict. Much of that production has remained constrained by sanctions, infrastructure limitations, and wartime disruptions. The prospect of Iranian barrels returning to global markets in meaningful volumes could reshape supply expectations just as consumers and governments remain focused on energy security after months of turmoil in the Middle East.

The move also marks a striking shift in U.S. policy. Washington spent years tightening restrictions on Iran's energy sector. Now, the Trump administration appears prepared to use oil revenues as a financial incentive to secure a lasting end to the conflict.

The oil could potentially start flowing the moment the ink dries without the expected waiting period.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:40

15 Tied To Antifa Charged With Violently Interfering With ICE Operations In Minnesota

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

Fifteen suspects are accused of conspiring with two Minneapolis-based Antifa groups to violently interfere with federal immigration enforcement, authorities announced on Tuesday. 

Daniel Rosen, who heads the U.S. attorney’s office for Minnesota, told reporters at his Minneapolis headquarters on June 16 that agents arrested 12 of the 15 suspects; one was already in custody for other offenses.

Two defendants remain at large. Rosen said both are aware that federal agents are seeking them in connection with an indictment that was unsealed just before the news conference.

“We expect they will surrender peacefully,” he said.

The 15 suspects—all from Minnesota—are charged with conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer, solicitation to commit a crime of violence, interstate threats, interstate stalking, assault on a federal officer, and destruction of government property.

“These defendants have been charged not for what they said, but for what they did. They all joined an agreement, a conspiracy to interfere with lawful immigration enforcement operations,” Rosen said.

“The conspiracy was not to interfere by their voice, but to do it by force. That’s a crime, and it will not be tolerated in the United States.”

A group called “Direct Action Minnesota” is tied to many of the allegations, Rosen said, while another group, Black Cat Workers Collective, is connected to other allegations

The new cases are part of a “broad federal effort to address organized lawless behavior,” he said.

Michael McCarthy, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations, said the announcement followed “a thorough and months-long investigation into a deeply concerning trend—coordinated violence targeting federal law enforcement officers and facilities.”

“There is a clear line that cannot be crossed” between peaceful protesting and violence, he said, adding, “some groups have crossed that line.”

He noted that many of the violent actions opposed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations.

The new charges were filed months after President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it was probing Antifa groups.

After some reporters questioned whether the new Antifa-related cases would hold up in court, given that a number of other cases involving anti-ICE activists have been dismissed, Rosen replied: “You watch how this case plays out; you watch how this evidence plays out, and the evidence will prove it all out.”

Antifa, short for “antifascist,” is a far-left extremist group that originated under the Soviet Union and functioned as the violent wing of Germany’s Communist Party to target political rivals. Antifa adherents label their enemies as “fascists” and often say they will use “any means necessary” to stop people from spreading messages they oppose.

Trump had issued a directive to disrupt and dismantle Antifa, which he designated a “domestic terrorist organization” in September 2025. The following month, Trump held a roundtable discussion with journalists and commentators who alleged that Antifa targeted them with threats or violence. 

Minnesota became a hotbed of resistance against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), sometimes involving Antifa, after federal agencies ramped up immigration enforcement in that state. That happened partly in response to accusations that networks of immigrants were defrauding government programs on a large scale.

In two separate January incidents, ICE opponents Renee Good and Alex Pretti were fatally shot by federal agents during protests, but there was no reported Antifa connection to either of those shootings. Rosen said investigations into both shootings are ongoing.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 19:15