Zero Hedge

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has retracted intelligence community reports on mysterious health problems known as Havana Syndrome, according to a memorandum released on June 11.

Gabbard found that the intelligence community assessments of the anomalous health incidents, released in 2023 and 2025, failed to meet the community’s analytic standards.

That included selectively excluding intelligence and evidence that did not support the conclusions and relying on an “ethically flawed medical study without noting methodological critiques,” Gabbard’s office said in the memo, sent to members of Congress.

The 2023 assessment concluded it was very unlikely that a foreign adversary was behind the incidents, which have impacted staffers in countries such as Cuba and China.

The updated assessment released in 2025 said most intelligence agencies still held it was very unlikely an enemy was responsible for the syndrome, but two components judged there was a “roughly even chance” that a foreign actor had used a novel weapon to target Americans, or had developed such a weapon.

Gabbard’s team said future assessments on the matter would adhere to “rigorous ethical standards incorporating all available intelligence sources and engaging a broad range of experts from agencies including the CIA.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence CIA Subcommittee, who has criticized the government reports, praised the new development.

“The assessment was deliberately manufactured and used to discredit some of our nation’s bravest and impede their access to medical care. As was the case with other high-visibility intelligence assessments, it fell far short of analytic integrity standards,” Crawford wrote in a post on X.

He added that the retractions were “a glimmer of hope for our nation’s intelligence officers, service members, and diplomats stationed around the world who have defended this country in austere locations and subsequently had the nation they served turn its back on them.”

The subcommittee said in a 2024 report that it was increasingly likely that a foreign adversary was behind some number of the reported health problems, and that the 2023 assessment was developed “in a manner inconsistent with analytic integrity and thoroughness.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said in 2020 that the most likely mechanism behind the incidents was directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, citing symptoms people have described, such as perceptual dizziness.

Government employees reporting the problems have had difficulty obtaining treatment, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in July 2024, recommending that the military develop written guidance and create a plan to rectify those difficulties.

Gabbard said last month that she is resigning from her position as the director of national security, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

President Donald Trump said on June 11 that he is nominating Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

The job oversees the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:20

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Gabbard Rescinds Intelligence Committee Reports On Mysterious Syndrome

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has retracted intelligence community reports on mysterious health problems known as Havana Syndrome, according to a memorandum released on June 11.

Gabbard found that the intelligence community assessments of the anomalous health incidents, released in 2023 and 2025, failed to meet the community’s analytic standards.

That included selectively excluding intelligence and evidence that did not support the conclusions and relying on an “ethically flawed medical study without noting methodological critiques,” Gabbard’s office said in the memo, sent to members of Congress.

The 2023 assessment concluded it was very unlikely that a foreign adversary was behind the incidents, which have impacted staffers in countries such as Cuba and China.

The updated assessment released in 2025 said most intelligence agencies still held it was very unlikely an enemy was responsible for the syndrome, but two components judged there was a “roughly even chance” that a foreign actor had used a novel weapon to target Americans, or had developed such a weapon.

Gabbard’s team said future assessments on the matter would adhere to “rigorous ethical standards incorporating all available intelligence sources and engaging a broad range of experts from agencies including the CIA.”

Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.), the former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence CIA Subcommittee, who has criticized the government reports, praised the new development.

“The assessment was deliberately manufactured and used to discredit some of our nation’s bravest and impede their access to medical care. As was the case with other high-visibility intelligence assessments, it fell far short of analytic integrity standards,” Crawford wrote in a post on X.

He added that the retractions were “a glimmer of hope for our nation’s intelligence officers, service members, and diplomats stationed around the world who have defended this country in austere locations and subsequently had the nation they served turn its back on them.”

The subcommittee said in a 2024 report that it was increasingly likely that a foreign adversary was behind some number of the reported health problems, and that the 2023 assessment was developed “in a manner inconsistent with analytic integrity and thoroughness.”

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine said in 2020 that the most likely mechanism behind the incidents was directed, pulsed radio-frequency energy, citing symptoms people have described, such as perceptual dizziness.

Government employees reporting the problems have had difficulty obtaining treatment, the U.S. Government Accountability Office said in July 2024, recommending that the military develop written guidance and create a plan to rectify those difficulties.

Gabbard said last month that she is resigning from her position as the director of national security, citing her husband’s recent cancer diagnosis.

President Donald Trump said on June 11 that he is nominating Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and a former Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, as director of national intelligence.

The job oversees the coordination of 18 intelligence agencies.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:20

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Graham Platner may have easily won Maine's Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, but his own party is already trying to figure out how to get rid of him. Democrats openly admit they cannot afford to lose this race if they want to retake the Senate, and Platner is already complicating their plans. Yet, the chaos involving Platner may have only just begun. Maine's Democratic establishment is clearly uneasy, and national Democrats are not hiding it.

AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

According to a report from NBC News, behind the scenes, party operatives are reportedly circulating negative polling on Platner, exploring whether funding threats might pressure him to withdraw, and testing public opinion with a text poll sent on primary day that asked voters about the allegations of his abusive and demeaning treatment of women.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is fully in Platner's corner, and he made his reasoning transparent. "There is no great secret that there is a strong division within the Democratic Party," Sanders said, criticizing the party establishment and praising Platner for challenging it. On the abuse allegations specifically, Sanders is choosing to take Platner's denials at face value.

"He denies it, she says something else, but what I do know is that there are people in the United States Senate right now who are not saints." He then pivoted to senators who voted for the Iraq War and tax cuts. Sanders is essentially arguing that Platner's personal failings are less disqualifying than the establishment's policy sins. Even Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who replaced Al Franken after his resignation over groping allegations, endorsed Platner without hesitation.

But the anxiety over Platner with the Democratic Party is very real. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) outright said she is "not comfortable" with Platner as the nominee. "I will not defend someone with that kind of history." Former Rep. Tom Malinowski argued that the steady stream of revelations says more than any single allegation. "If a man's past keeps surprising us, it's a safe bet that his present and future will continue to surprise us as well," he said, calling Platner a "moral dilemma" and warning Democrats against repeating what he described as the mistake of embracing candidates more defined by their anti-establishment appeal than their fitness for office.

"The easiest, most logical and most likely path to picking up seats is with Maine in our column," a senior Democratic strategist said. "It's a struggle to see how we get the majority without Maine." Platner's internal polling already shows his lead over five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) shrinking to four points - this in a state that went for Kamala Harris by seven in 2024. He is underperforming the baseline in the most favorable environment Democrats have had in years.

But the Platner campaign is showing no signs of leaving voluntarily.

"The Democrats of Maine have made clear who their choice is," Platner adviser Rebecca Katz said. "And the rest of the party should honor that choice." That may be true. It may also be exactly what the Republican Party is counting on.

Under Maine law, Platner would need to voluntarily withdraw by July 13 for Democrats to replace him on the ballot. According to NBC News, a Republican strategist involved in Senate races said the GOP is deliberately withholding additional opposition research until the candidate-replacement deadline passes, so Democrats are unable to replace him the same way Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race after it became politically impossible to keep him on the ticket.

Once that deadline passes and Republicans unleash whatever opposition research they have been sitting on, the Democrats will have no options left, just a nominee they cannot fully defend in a race they cannot afford to lose.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:00

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Democrats Divided On Platner As GOP Reportedly Has Opposition Research That Will Destroy Him

Graham Platner may have easily won Maine's Democratic Senate primary Tuesday, but his own party is already trying to figure out how to get rid of him. Democrats openly admit they cannot afford to lose this race if they want to retake the Senate, and Platner is already complicating their plans. Yet, the chaos involving Platner may have only just begun. Maine's Democratic establishment is clearly uneasy, and national Democrats are not hiding it.

AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

According to a report from NBC News, behind the scenes, party operatives are reportedly circulating negative polling on Platner, exploring whether funding threats might pressure him to withdraw, and testing public opinion with a text poll sent on primary day that asked voters about the allegations of his abusive and demeaning treatment of women.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is fully in Platner's corner, and he made his reasoning transparent. "There is no great secret that there is a strong division within the Democratic Party," Sanders said, criticizing the party establishment and praising Platner for challenging it. On the abuse allegations specifically, Sanders is choosing to take Platner's denials at face value.

"He denies it, she says something else, but what I do know is that there are people in the United States Senate right now who are not saints." He then pivoted to senators who voted for the Iraq War and tax cuts. Sanders is essentially arguing that Platner's personal failings are less disqualifying than the establishment's policy sins. Even Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who replaced Al Franken after his resignation over groping allegations, endorsed Platner without hesitation.

But the anxiety over Platner with the Democratic Party is very real. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) outright said she is "not comfortable" with Platner as the nominee. "I will not defend someone with that kind of history." Former Rep. Tom Malinowski argued that the steady stream of revelations says more than any single allegation. "If a man's past keeps surprising us, it's a safe bet that his present and future will continue to surprise us as well," he said, calling Platner a "moral dilemma" and warning Democrats against repeating what he described as the mistake of embracing candidates more defined by their anti-establishment appeal than their fitness for office.

"The easiest, most logical and most likely path to picking up seats is with Maine in our column," a senior Democratic strategist said. "It's a struggle to see how we get the majority without Maine." Platner's internal polling already shows his lead over five-term incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) shrinking to four points - this in a state that went for Kamala Harris by seven in 2024. He is underperforming the baseline in the most favorable environment Democrats have had in years.

But the Platner campaign is showing no signs of leaving voluntarily.

"The Democrats of Maine have made clear who their choice is," Platner adviser Rebecca Katz said. "And the rest of the party should honor that choice." That may be true. It may also be exactly what the Republican Party is counting on.

Under Maine law, Platner would need to voluntarily withdraw by July 13 for Democrats to replace him on the ballot. According to NBC News, a Republican strategist involved in Senate races said the GOP is deliberately withholding additional opposition research until the candidate-replacement deadline passes, so Democrats are unable to replace him the same way Joe Biden was pushed out of the 2024 presidential race after it became politically impossible to keep him on the ticket.

Once that deadline passes and Republicans unleash whatever opposition research they have been sitting on, the Democrats will have no options left, just a nominee they cannot fully defend in a race they cannot afford to lose.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 14:00

Ministry Of Truth: UK Government To Block 'False Information' During 'Crisis Events'

Ministry Of Truth: UK Government To Block 'False Information' During 'Crisis Events'

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity,

Vague new rules will allow UK regulators to pressure platforms over "legal but harmful" content whenever government ministers declare a crisis, while the same government ploughs ahead with mandatory phone scanning, digital ID lockdowns, and jail threats for tech bosses who refuse to spy on every device.

The latest move from Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn makes explicit what privacy campaigners have long warned: the Online Safety Act is being weaponised far beyond any child-protection claim.

Benn confirmed that the internet regulator will now wield enhanced powers to tackle "false information" online during "times of crisis," directly tying the recent Belfast unrest to this framework. The regulator has already contacted platforms, with ministers asserting that violence "appears to have been incited online."

Benn stated that if people put online 'false information,' "it is not acceptable and it may well be a criminal offence depending on the circumstances as the chief constable made clear yesterday."

When asked how a "time of crisis" would be defined, Benn said it "will be set out in due course."

The unrest followed a serious knife attack on a local man by an asylum seeker and escalated into protests involving vehicle fires, arson attacks on homes, and clashes with police that injured a dozen officers.

In addition, Ofcom, the UK's regulator for communications, responsible for overseeing broadcasting, telecommunications and - since the passage of the Online Safety Act - the major online platforms, is now using its powers to direct platforms toward enhanced, crisis-specific moderation measures whenever it or ministers identify spikes in 'illegal 'harmful' content during whatever it deems a 'crisis' event.

An Ofcom open letter published this week directly addresses the Belfast situation. It states: "Following a serious knife attack that took place in Belfast on Monday night, we have seen civil unrest in the city, some of which appears to have been incited online. This has included racially motivated incidents of violence, arson attacks on homes and vehicles, and attacks against police."

The letter goes on to remind online service providers of their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to assess and mitigate risks of 'illegal' content, including material amounting to offences of stirring up hatred or provoking violence.

It emphasises that "previous crises have shown how a sudden increase in the amount of illegal content circulating online can manifest in hate crime and violence in the real world" and that "usual content moderation systems and processes may not be sufficient in such circumstances."

Crucially, Ofcom confirmed new measures added to its online safety codes of practice under which platforms "should have procedures in place to respond to spikes in illegal content during a crisis." These measures, confirmed the day before the letter, are expected to be enacted by platforms immediately, without waiting for parliamentary approval. The letter stresses that services must "act now to address illegal content" and follow existing crisis protocols where they exist.

This directly engages the core claim in widely shared analysis on X that the Online Safety Act - repeatedly sold to the public as a child-protection measure - is now being applied to adult content and civil unrest with no reference to children in the regulator's own crisis guidance.

Given that the government and it's mouthpiece media has spent the entire week claiming Elon Musk and Nigel Farage, along with anyone commenting on the latest savage migrant attack, is inciting violence, you can see exactly where this is going.

The same analysis highlights how the definition of crisis has been stretched. Cabinet Office guidance in the Amber Book states that the terms "emergency" and "crisis" are used interchangeably under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

An emergency covers events or situations which cause or may cause serious damage to human welfare, the environment or UK security - explicitly including situations that "have not yet been harmful but have the potential to be." No fresh parliamentary debate or vote was required for this expansive interpretation to underpin regulatory action during the Belfast unrest.

Statements from Technology Secretary Liz Kendall also indicate that the government intends to amend online safety laws to give the regulator stronger powers to require platforms to take tougher action on material that it says could incite violence or disorder during periods of "heightened social and political tension."

Critics argue this effectively allows the state to restrict access to real-time footage and non-government sources of information during such periods, framing it as a direct threat to freedom of expression and the public's ability to access unfiltered information.

These concerns sit alongside the Ofcom letter's call for platforms to have crisis response plans ready for spikes in 'illegal' content, including content that the government decrees could stir up hatred or provoke violence.

Further reports emerged of the UK government contacting journalists covering the Northern Ireland events to instruct their reporting, attributed to an anonymous government source.

According to the communications shared online, journalists were reportedly directed on the preferred framing of the unrest, including how to characterise the protests and the underlying causes.

This intervention occurred as Ofcom was simultaneously issuing its crisis guidance to platforms, prompting concerns that the government is attempting to align coverage across both traditional media and online spaces to limit unapproved narratives during periods of public disorder.

Alongside the new regulatory powers, the UK government is rolling out something called PoliceAI, a new National Centre for AI in Policing launched with £115 million in funding. This centralised body consolidates AI development and deployment across all 43 forces in England and Wales, focusing on tools such as live facial recognition, predictive analytics, automated data analysis and deepfake detection.

The government states that it is designed to speed up investigations and automate routine policing tasks while creating a single national framework for testing and rolling out the technology.

In the context of the new crisis powers, PoliceAI provides authorities with automated systems capable of scanning vast amounts of online content and communications in real time. These tools can flag material deemed to spread "false information" or incite disorder during government-designated crisis events, enabling rapid coordination with Ofcom for content removal.

Combined with facial recognition and predictive capabilities, the system allows police to identify and target individuals posting or sharing information the authorities wish to suppress, turning AI into a powerful mechanism for narrative control and the blocking of inconvenient facts.

These developments do not come in isolation. They connect directly to the surveillance architecture we've relentlessly detailed: plans to jail tech CEOs for up to five years if they refuse to build client-side scanning systems capable of reviewing every photo, video and message on user devices before encryption.

The same framework underpins the coming digital ID lockdown on every phone, under which biometric verification and government-issued ID would be required for full smartphone functionality, with non-compliant devices restricted to limited "child mode."

Encrypted messaging service Signal is resisting the wider demands for phone screening and content scanning. President Meredith Whittaker has stated Signal would "absolutely, 100% walk" from the UK rather than weaken its end-to-end encryption.

Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo has warned that the plans "will only result in population-wide ID checks for all of us to use our phones, tablets and laptops" and amount to "ID checks for the internet." She described the requirement as invoking "the death of anonymity and internet privacy" and the overall approach as "a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the UK one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world."

The UK digital ID scheme is the lynchpin of a dystopian mass surveillance grid to be implemented for all from cradle to grave.

The government is pressing ahead to expanded regulatory powers over online content during vaguely defined "crisis events," with platforms told to implement special moderation protocols immediately. At the same time the government is advancing device-level scanning, embedding digital ID requirements on every phone, and threatening executives with prison for non-compliance. Instructions to journalists and pressure on platforms complete the picture.

This is nothing less than the construction of a complete surveillance control grid that monitors devices, verifies identity for basic access, and suppresses inconvenient information whenever those in power declare an emergency.

Free speech, privacy and access to unfiltered reality are the direct targets. Resistance from platforms willing to exit rather than comply, and from citizens who refuse to accept the pretext, remains the only obstacle to its full dystopian implementation.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:40

Ministry Of Truth: UK Government To Block 'False Information' During 'Crisis Events'

Ministry Of Truth: UK Government To Block 'False Information' During 'Crisis Events'

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity,

Vague new rules will allow UK regulators to pressure platforms over "legal but harmful" content whenever government ministers declare a crisis, while the same government ploughs ahead with mandatory phone scanning, digital ID lockdowns, and jail threats for tech bosses who refuse to spy on every device.

The latest move from Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn makes explicit what privacy campaigners have long warned: the Online Safety Act is being weaponised far beyond any child-protection claim.

Benn confirmed that the internet regulator will now wield enhanced powers to tackle "false information" online during "times of crisis," directly tying the recent Belfast unrest to this framework. The regulator has already contacted platforms, with ministers asserting that violence "appears to have been incited online."

Benn stated that if people put online 'false information,' "it is not acceptable and it may well be a criminal offence depending on the circumstances as the chief constable made clear yesterday."

When asked how a "time of crisis" would be defined, Benn said it "will be set out in due course."

The unrest followed a serious knife attack on a local man by an asylum seeker and escalated into protests involving vehicle fires, arson attacks on homes, and clashes with police that injured a dozen officers.

In addition, Ofcom, the UK's regulator for communications, responsible for overseeing broadcasting, telecommunications and - since the passage of the Online Safety Act - the major online platforms, is now using its powers to direct platforms toward enhanced, crisis-specific moderation measures whenever it or ministers identify spikes in 'illegal 'harmful' content during whatever it deems a 'crisis' event.

An Ofcom open letter published this week directly addresses the Belfast situation. It states: "Following a serious knife attack that took place in Belfast on Monday night, we have seen civil unrest in the city, some of which appears to have been incited online. This has included racially motivated incidents of violence, arson attacks on homes and vehicles, and attacks against police."

The letter goes on to remind online service providers of their duties under the Online Safety Act 2023 to assess and mitigate risks of 'illegal' content, including material amounting to offences of stirring up hatred or provoking violence.

It emphasises that "previous crises have shown how a sudden increase in the amount of illegal content circulating online can manifest in hate crime and violence in the real world" and that "usual content moderation systems and processes may not be sufficient in such circumstances."

Crucially, Ofcom confirmed new measures added to its online safety codes of practice under which platforms "should have procedures in place to respond to spikes in illegal content during a crisis." These measures, confirmed the day before the letter, are expected to be enacted by platforms immediately, without waiting for parliamentary approval. The letter stresses that services must "act now to address illegal content" and follow existing crisis protocols where they exist.

This directly engages the core claim in widely shared analysis on X that the Online Safety Act - repeatedly sold to the public as a child-protection measure - is now being applied to adult content and civil unrest with no reference to children in the regulator's own crisis guidance.

Given that the government and it's mouthpiece media has spent the entire week claiming Elon Musk and Nigel Farage, along with anyone commenting on the latest savage migrant attack, is inciting violence, you can see exactly where this is going.

The same analysis highlights how the definition of crisis has been stretched. Cabinet Office guidance in the Amber Book states that the terms "emergency" and "crisis" are used interchangeably under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

An emergency covers events or situations which cause or may cause serious damage to human welfare, the environment or UK security - explicitly including situations that "have not yet been harmful but have the potential to be." No fresh parliamentary debate or vote was required for this expansive interpretation to underpin regulatory action during the Belfast unrest.

Statements from Technology Secretary Liz Kendall also indicate that the government intends to amend online safety laws to give the regulator stronger powers to require platforms to take tougher action on material that it says could incite violence or disorder during periods of "heightened social and political tension."

Critics argue this effectively allows the state to restrict access to real-time footage and non-government sources of information during such periods, framing it as a direct threat to freedom of expression and the public's ability to access unfiltered information.

These concerns sit alongside the Ofcom letter's call for platforms to have crisis response plans ready for spikes in 'illegal' content, including content that the government decrees could stir up hatred or provoke violence.

Further reports emerged of the UK government contacting journalists covering the Northern Ireland events to instruct their reporting, attributed to an anonymous government source.

According to the communications shared online, journalists were reportedly directed on the preferred framing of the unrest, including how to characterise the protests and the underlying causes.

This intervention occurred as Ofcom was simultaneously issuing its crisis guidance to platforms, prompting concerns that the government is attempting to align coverage across both traditional media and online spaces to limit unapproved narratives during periods of public disorder.

Alongside the new regulatory powers, the UK government is rolling out something called PoliceAI, a new National Centre for AI in Policing launched with £115 million in funding. This centralised body consolidates AI development and deployment across all 43 forces in England and Wales, focusing on tools such as live facial recognition, predictive analytics, automated data analysis and deepfake detection.

The government states that it is designed to speed up investigations and automate routine policing tasks while creating a single national framework for testing and rolling out the technology.

In the context of the new crisis powers, PoliceAI provides authorities with automated systems capable of scanning vast amounts of online content and communications in real time. These tools can flag material deemed to spread "false information" or incite disorder during government-designated crisis events, enabling rapid coordination with Ofcom for content removal.

Combined with facial recognition and predictive capabilities, the system allows police to identify and target individuals posting or sharing information the authorities wish to suppress, turning AI into a powerful mechanism for narrative control and the blocking of inconvenient facts.

These developments do not come in isolation. They connect directly to the surveillance architecture we've relentlessly detailed: plans to jail tech CEOs for up to five years if they refuse to build client-side scanning systems capable of reviewing every photo, video and message on user devices before encryption.

The same framework underpins the coming digital ID lockdown on every phone, under which biometric verification and government-issued ID would be required for full smartphone functionality, with non-compliant devices restricted to limited "child mode."

Encrypted messaging service Signal is resisting the wider demands for phone screening and content scanning. President Meredith Whittaker has stated Signal would "absolutely, 100% walk" from the UK rather than weaken its end-to-end encryption.

Big Brother Watch director Silkie Carlo has warned that the plans "will only result in population-wide ID checks for all of us to use our phones, tablets and laptops" and amount to "ID checks for the internet." She described the requirement as invoking "the death of anonymity and internet privacy" and the overall approach as "a crossing of the Rubicon that would make the UK one of the most authoritarian internet regimes in the world."

The UK digital ID scheme is the lynchpin of a dystopian mass surveillance grid to be implemented for all from cradle to grave.

The government is pressing ahead to expanded regulatory powers over online content during vaguely defined "crisis events," with platforms told to implement special moderation protocols immediately. At the same time the government is advancing device-level scanning, embedding digital ID requirements on every phone, and threatening executives with prison for non-compliance. Instructions to journalists and pressure on platforms complete the picture.

This is nothing less than the construction of a complete surveillance control grid that monitors devices, verifies identity for basic access, and suppresses inconvenient information whenever those in power declare an emergency.

Free speech, privacy and access to unfiltered reality are the direct targets. Resistance from platforms willing to exit rather than comply, and from citizens who refuse to accept the pretext, remains the only obstacle to its full dystopian implementation.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:40

UBS Finds Global Trade Structure "Surprisingly Stable" As AI Emerges As Growth Engine

UBS Finds Global Trade Structure "Surprisingly Stable" As AI Emerges As Growth Engine

Despite ongoing Gulf-related energy shocks, mounting concerns over a potential energy cliff (read here), and UBS last month reactivating its supply chain stress-watch coverage, another UBS analyst noted Wednesday that the overall structure of global trade remains "surprisingly stable."

Analyst Arend Kapteyn pointed out that the structure of global trade remains far more structurally stable than recent growth trends suggest, even as technology and AI-related categories have driven nearly 80% of recent trade growth while accounting for only about 18% of total exports.

The big takeaway is that technology goods are becoming the engine of global trade growth. This means that semiconductor chips, AI hardware, data-center equipment, and electronics now carry outsized importance for global trade volumes, corporate earnings, and freight demand.

"What is perhaps surprising is how little the structure of global trade has changed despite large shifts in annual growth drivers. To show this, we aggregate 97 UN Comtrade product categories into 14 subcategories across three broad buckets—consumer, intermediate, and capital goods," Kapteyn said.

Kapteyn continued:

The left-hand side shows contributions to global export growth. The early-1990s surge largely reflects the dissolution of the USSR and the entry of those economies into global trade data. The post-2000 expansion coincides with the rise of global supply chains, as goods crossed borders multiple times at different stages of production—mechanically inflating gross trade. This dynamic favoured intermediate goods, whose share rose from ~30% to ~40%.

At first glance, consumer goods (green bars) seem to grow more slowly. In fact, their share has increased—from ~23% in the early 1990s to nearly 30% today—because they have proved more resilient in downturns. Consumer trade fell less sharply during the GFC, the 2015 commodity downturn and strong USD episode, and the 2018–19 trade slump (when tariffs, tech, and autos were hit simultaneously). Partly reflecting that resilience, the intermediate share has since fallen back to ~30%. Tech trade spans multiple categories and is currently growing rapidly, but it's share is little changed from what it was in the late 1990s (i.e. 18%) and still a bit lower than its pandemic peak (20%).

Global Macro Chart of the Day

In the US, Goldman recently calculated that AI data center buildouts by hyperscalers will reach a staggering $800 billion by year-end.

Certainly, in the US, AI-related spending is boosting the economy, while China is preparing to spend upwards of $300 billion on data center buildouts over the next five years.

To sum up, global trade is being driven by technology spending, which has become a global growth engine. That makes AI and chips extraordinarily important.

If technology supply chains are the next beating heart for the global economy, then disruptions in chips, AI hardware, rare earths, Taiwan, China, or export controls can quickly ripple through supply chains, production, pricing, and capex much faster than traditional goods shocks.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:20

The K-Shaped Economy: Why The Middle Class Moved Up

The K-Shaped Economy: Why The Middle Class Moved Up

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The K-shaped economy has become shorthand for a tidy story. The rich pull away while everyone else falls behind. It fits the mood, and it makes for a sharp headline. The problem is that it’s mostly wrong. When you pull the actual Census data, the dominant move of the last half-century isn’t down. It’s up. Yes, the middle class is shrinking. But it’s shrinking because millions of households climbed into higher brackets, not because they slid into poverty. The real divide lies elsewhere, and most of the coverage walks right past it.

Let’s start with what the term “K-shaped” means, because the label gets stretched to cover almost everything. A K-shaped economy is one where different parts move in opposite directions at the same time. One arm rises with high incomes, corporate profits, and asset values. The other arm stalls with low-wage work, thin savings, and shuttered small businesses. The phrase caught fire after the 2020 shutdown, when high-skill workers shifted to remote work while service jobs vanished overnight.

As a description of that moment, it was accurate. The shutdown hit restaurants, travel, and personal services hardest, and those jobs are inherently lower-wage. Meanwhile, technology, finance, and professional services barely missed a beat. So far, so good. The trouble starts when the K gets applied to the entire arc of American incomes over the last five decades. That’s where the story breaks down.

The Middle Class Didn’t Collapse. It Climbed.

Notice the chart above. In 1967, about 54.6% of U.S. households sat in the middle-income band, earning between $35,000 and $100,000 in 2022 dollars. By 2022, that share had fallen to 39.1%. On its face, that looks exactly like the disappearing middle class everyone talks about. But follow where they went. Over the same stretch, the share of households earning $100,000 or more nearly tripled, climbing from 13.1% to 37.5%.

Here’s the part the headlines skip. The low-income share fell too, from 32.3% to 23.3%. Both the middle and the bottom shrank, while the top exploded. That’s not a population sliding into hardship. That’s a population moving up the ladder. The American Enterprise Institute’s work on this is blunt about it. By their definition, the upper-middle class is now the largest single income group in the country, roughly three times its size in 1979.

So what drove the climb? Two main things: more dual-earner households and rising educational attainment, especially among women. In 1970, about 11% of women held a college degree. Today, the figure is closer to 40%. More households with two paychecks and higher credentials simply earn more money.

Of course, someone will object that a fixed $100,000 line just reflects inflation nudging households over the threshold. It doesn’t. These figures are stated in constant 2022 dollars, so the bar is held flat in real terms. Households cleared it anyway, in far greater numbers. The upward migration is real, not a measurement trick.

Where the K-shape Is Real, It’s About Ownership

So is the K-shaped economy a myth? No. It’s just pointed at the wrong variable. The genuine divide isn’t income mobility. It’s wealth.

This is where the common framing of these numbers goes off the rails, and it’s worth correcting directly. You’ll often read that the top 10% own “two-thirds of the economy.” That’s not right. They don’t own the economy. They own the assets. According to the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts, as of the fourth quarter of 2024, the top 10% of households by wealth held about 67% of total household net worth, averaging $8.1 million each. The bottom 50% held roughly 2.5% of the total, averaging about $60,000. Net worth and GDP are not the same thing, and the difference matters.

Why is wealth so concentrated when income mobility looks so healthy? Because the two run on different engines. A decade and a half of near-zero interest rates, asset purchases, and pandemic-era stimulus inflated the price of stocks and homes. If you owned those assets, your balance sheet soared. If you rented and lived paycheck to paycheck, you got the inflation without the gains. That’s the real lower arm of the K. It’s not that the middle isn’t earning. It’s that a large slice of the country doesn’t own the things that compound.

But Everyone Says They Feel Broke

Here’s the strongest counter to everything I’ve laid out. Walk into almost any room, including rooms full of high earners, and you’ll hear the same complaint. People feel broke. Surveys back it up, with financial anxiety running high even among households pulling in six figures. So if the data say people are moving up, why does almost no one feel like they’re winning?

The answer is mostly psychological, and behavioral finance has a name for it: relative deprivation. Satisfaction isn’t set by your absolute position. It’s set by comparison, and the comparison is almost always upward and local. Live near Greenwich, Connecticut, and your reference point becomes hedge fund billionaires, which makes a $5 million net worth feel like loose change.

Step back, though, and the absurdity is obvious. A $1 million net worth puts you in the top 1.6% of adults on the planet. UBS counts roughly 60 million people in that group, and together they hold nearly half of all the wealth in the world. The United States now mints more than a thousand new millionaires a day. Yet plenty of those same millionaires go to bed feeling like they’re falling behind, because they’re measuring against the 0.001%, not the other 98.4%.

Make no mistake, real hardship exists at the bottom of the distribution, and I’m not waving it away. But a large share of the “everyone feels broke” sentiment isn’t a balance-sheet problem. It’s a scoreboard problem. People have climbed the ladder and kept their eyes locked on the rungs above them. As Tony Isola recently put it, millionaires aren’t losing the game; they’re just looking at the wrong scoreboard.

Will AI Widen the K or Narrow It?

That brings us to the question hanging over all of this. Does artificial intelligence make the divide better or worse?

The honest answer is that it could go either way, and anyone who tells you they’re certain is selling something. Start with the risk case. Goldman Sachs estimates that around 300 million jobs globally are exposed to AI automation, and that the technology could handle tasks making up roughly a quarter of U.S. work hours. Notice the word exposed. It does not mean eliminated. Goldman’s own baseline is that AI displaces about 6% to 7% of jobs over a decade, with a wide range around that figure. The roles most exposed, administrative support, basic accounting, and routine office work, sit disproportionately in the middle of the income distribution. That’s a threat aimed squarely at the households that just climbed.

Now the upside. That same Goldman research projects AI could lift global GDP by about 7% and add 1.5 points to annual productivity growth over ten years. The buildout itself creates demand. Goldman estimates the U.S. alone needs roughly 500,000 net new workers to power data centers and the grid by 2030. If AI raises broad productivity and wages follow, it could lift the bottom arm of the K rather than crush it.

So which is it? In my view, the technology itself is neutral. The outcome depends on policy and adoption, and here is where I get cautious. Policymakers are almost always reactive rather than proactive. Left to run on its own, AI tends to reward capital and high skills first, which widens the gap before it ever narrows. I’d genuinely love to be wrong on this. The setup just doesn’t favor it.

What This Means for Investors

Strip away the politics, and the K-shaped economy leaves investors with a clear instruction. Own the top arm, but respect the bottom one.

The top arm is productive capital. Companies building and deploying AI, chips, cloud platforms, and data centers are at the forefront of a structural shift, not a passing cycle. Demand for automation and analytics doesn’t ebb the way casual dining demand does. Skills-driven sectors belong here, too. Biotech, advanced manufacturing, and specialized services reward expertise and intellectual property, and the firms with real competitive moats tend to compound over long horizons. Asset-rich real estate tied to growth hubs and digital infrastructure fits the same logic, which is why logistics and data-linked facilities look better positioned than legacy retail or half-empty suburban office.

The bottom arm calls for caution, not blanket avoidance. Labor-intensive, low-margin businesses exposed to automation face real headwinds, so I’d be careful owning traditional retail or hospitality without a clear technology story. Even so, defensives still earn their keep. Staples, healthcare, and utilities provide ballast and income when the tape turns, and in an uneven economy, steady cash flow matters more, not less. Add policy to the watch list as well. Inequality is a political flashpoint, which keeps capital gains rates, corporate taxes, and labor rules in play as live risks.

One last point, and it’s the one most investors ignore. Benchmark your progress against your own plan, not against the richest person you know. The investor who measures himself against the 0.001% will always feel behind, and that feeling drives the worst decisions. Chasing the hot trade, abandoning a sound allocation, and taking on risks you don’t need always leads to poor outcomes. The data say you’re very likely doing better than you think. So continue to focus on your personal goals, rather than worrying about what others have.

The K-shaped economy is real, but it’s been badly misread. The middle class isn’t falling into poverty. It’s thinning because it’s climbing, even as a genuine gap opens between those who own assets and those who don’t. AI is about to test which side of that line you’re on. The investors who come out ahead won’t be the ones who panic over the headlines. They’ll be the ones who put capital where the productivity is, protect against the part of the economy that’s truly under pressure, and refuse to let comparison run their decisions.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:00

The K-Shaped Economy: Why The Middle Class Moved Up

The K-Shaped Economy: Why The Middle Class Moved Up

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The K-shaped economy has become shorthand for a tidy story. The rich pull away while everyone else falls behind. It fits the mood, and it makes for a sharp headline. The problem is that it’s mostly wrong. When you pull the actual Census data, the dominant move of the last half-century isn’t down. It’s up. Yes, the middle class is shrinking. But it’s shrinking because millions of households climbed into higher brackets, not because they slid into poverty. The real divide lies elsewhere, and most of the coverage walks right past it.

Let’s start with what the term “K-shaped” means, because the label gets stretched to cover almost everything. A K-shaped economy is one where different parts move in opposite directions at the same time. One arm rises with high incomes, corporate profits, and asset values. The other arm stalls with low-wage work, thin savings, and shuttered small businesses. The phrase caught fire after the 2020 shutdown, when high-skill workers shifted to remote work while service jobs vanished overnight.

As a description of that moment, it was accurate. The shutdown hit restaurants, travel, and personal services hardest, and those jobs are inherently lower-wage. Meanwhile, technology, finance, and professional services barely missed a beat. So far, so good. The trouble starts when the K gets applied to the entire arc of American incomes over the last five decades. That’s where the story breaks down.

The Middle Class Didn’t Collapse. It Climbed.

Notice the chart above. In 1967, about 54.6% of U.S. households sat in the middle-income band, earning between $35,000 and $100,000 in 2022 dollars. By 2022, that share had fallen to 39.1%. On its face, that looks exactly like the disappearing middle class everyone talks about. But follow where they went. Over the same stretch, the share of households earning $100,000 or more nearly tripled, climbing from 13.1% to 37.5%.

Here’s the part the headlines skip. The low-income share fell too, from 32.3% to 23.3%. Both the middle and the bottom shrank, while the top exploded. That’s not a population sliding into hardship. That’s a population moving up the ladder. The American Enterprise Institute’s work on this is blunt about it. By their definition, the upper-middle class is now the largest single income group in the country, roughly three times its size in 1979.

So what drove the climb? Two main things: more dual-earner households and rising educational attainment, especially among women. In 1970, about 11% of women held a college degree. Today, the figure is closer to 40%. More households with two paychecks and higher credentials simply earn more money.

Of course, someone will object that a fixed $100,000 line just reflects inflation nudging households over the threshold. It doesn’t. These figures are stated in constant 2022 dollars, so the bar is held flat in real terms. Households cleared it anyway, in far greater numbers. The upward migration is real, not a measurement trick.

Where the K-shape Is Real, It’s About Ownership

So is the K-shaped economy a myth? No. It’s just pointed at the wrong variable. The genuine divide isn’t income mobility. It’s wealth.

This is where the common framing of these numbers goes off the rails, and it’s worth correcting directly. You’ll often read that the top 10% own “two-thirds of the economy.” That’s not right. They don’t own the economy. They own the assets. According to the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts, as of the fourth quarter of 2024, the top 10% of households by wealth held about 67% of total household net worth, averaging $8.1 million each. The bottom 50% held roughly 2.5% of the total, averaging about $60,000. Net worth and GDP are not the same thing, and the difference matters.

Why is wealth so concentrated when income mobility looks so healthy? Because the two run on different engines. A decade and a half of near-zero interest rates, asset purchases, and pandemic-era stimulus inflated the price of stocks and homes. If you owned those assets, your balance sheet soared. If you rented and lived paycheck to paycheck, you got the inflation without the gains. That’s the real lower arm of the K. It’s not that the middle isn’t earning. It’s that a large slice of the country doesn’t own the things that compound.

But Everyone Says They Feel Broke

Here’s the strongest counter to everything I’ve laid out. Walk into almost any room, including rooms full of high earners, and you’ll hear the same complaint. People feel broke. Surveys back it up, with financial anxiety running high even among households pulling in six figures. So if the data say people are moving up, why does almost no one feel like they’re winning?

The answer is mostly psychological, and behavioral finance has a name for it: relative deprivation. Satisfaction isn’t set by your absolute position. It’s set by comparison, and the comparison is almost always upward and local. Live near Greenwich, Connecticut, and your reference point becomes hedge fund billionaires, which makes a $5 million net worth feel like loose change.

Step back, though, and the absurdity is obvious. A $1 million net worth puts you in the top 1.6% of adults on the planet. UBS counts roughly 60 million people in that group, and together they hold nearly half of all the wealth in the world. The United States now mints more than a thousand new millionaires a day. Yet plenty of those same millionaires go to bed feeling like they’re falling behind, because they’re measuring against the 0.001%, not the other 98.4%.

Make no mistake, real hardship exists at the bottom of the distribution, and I’m not waving it away. But a large share of the “everyone feels broke” sentiment isn’t a balance-sheet problem. It’s a scoreboard problem. People have climbed the ladder and kept their eyes locked on the rungs above them. As Tony Isola recently put it, millionaires aren’t losing the game; they’re just looking at the wrong scoreboard.

Will AI Widen the K or Narrow It?

That brings us to the question hanging over all of this. Does artificial intelligence make the divide better or worse?

The honest answer is that it could go either way, and anyone who tells you they’re certain is selling something. Start with the risk case. Goldman Sachs estimates that around 300 million jobs globally are exposed to AI automation, and that the technology could handle tasks making up roughly a quarter of U.S. work hours. Notice the word exposed. It does not mean eliminated. Goldman’s own baseline is that AI displaces about 6% to 7% of jobs over a decade, with a wide range around that figure. The roles most exposed, administrative support, basic accounting, and routine office work, sit disproportionately in the middle of the income distribution. That’s a threat aimed squarely at the households that just climbed.

Now the upside. That same Goldman research projects AI could lift global GDP by about 7% and add 1.5 points to annual productivity growth over ten years. The buildout itself creates demand. Goldman estimates the U.S. alone needs roughly 500,000 net new workers to power data centers and the grid by 2030. If AI raises broad productivity and wages follow, it could lift the bottom arm of the K rather than crush it.

So which is it? In my view, the technology itself is neutral. The outcome depends on policy and adoption, and here is where I get cautious. Policymakers are almost always reactive rather than proactive. Left to run on its own, AI tends to reward capital and high skills first, which widens the gap before it ever narrows. I’d genuinely love to be wrong on this. The setup just doesn’t favor it.

What This Means for Investors

Strip away the politics, and the K-shaped economy leaves investors with a clear instruction. Own the top arm, but respect the bottom one.

The top arm is productive capital. Companies building and deploying AI, chips, cloud platforms, and data centers are at the forefront of a structural shift, not a passing cycle. Demand for automation and analytics doesn’t ebb the way casual dining demand does. Skills-driven sectors belong here, too. Biotech, advanced manufacturing, and specialized services reward expertise and intellectual property, and the firms with real competitive moats tend to compound over long horizons. Asset-rich real estate tied to growth hubs and digital infrastructure fits the same logic, which is why logistics and data-linked facilities look better positioned than legacy retail or half-empty suburban office.

The bottom arm calls for caution, not blanket avoidance. Labor-intensive, low-margin businesses exposed to automation face real headwinds, so I’d be careful owning traditional retail or hospitality without a clear technology story. Even so, defensives still earn their keep. Staples, healthcare, and utilities provide ballast and income when the tape turns, and in an uneven economy, steady cash flow matters more, not less. Add policy to the watch list as well. Inequality is a political flashpoint, which keeps capital gains rates, corporate taxes, and labor rules in play as live risks.

One last point, and it’s the one most investors ignore. Benchmark your progress against your own plan, not against the richest person you know. The investor who measures himself against the 0.001% will always feel behind, and that feeling drives the worst decisions. Chasing the hot trade, abandoning a sound allocation, and taking on risks you don’t need always leads to poor outcomes. The data say you’re very likely doing better than you think. So continue to focus on your personal goals, rather than worrying about what others have.

The K-shaped economy is real, but it’s been badly misread. The middle class isn’t falling into poverty. It’s thinning because it’s climbing, even as a genuine gap opens between those who own assets and those who don’t. AI is about to test which side of that line you’re on. The investors who come out ahead won’t be the ones who panic over the headlines. They’ll be the ones who put capital where the productivity is, protect against the part of the economy that’s truly under pressure, and refuse to let comparison run their decisions.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 13:00

Banks Curb FOMO-Chasing Levered Bets On Korean Tech Firms

Banks Curb FOMO-Chasing Levered Bets On Korean Tech Firms

SK Hynix has been THE poster-child for 'Vol Up, Spot Up' FOMO-chasing over the past few months of exuberant semi-shortage panic-buying...

And volumes in levered Semi trades has been astronomical...

With SK Hynix standing out among the most-levered bets...

Driven by massive speculative momentum (margin loans at record highs)...

...which faced huge forced liquidations amid the recent volatility...

So it really should not be a surprise that Bloomberg reports that global banks are curbing hedge funds’ leveraged bets on Asia’s top chipmakers including SK Hynix and Samsung.

According to people familiar with the matter, brokers including Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs have raised the financing cost for hedge funds to take bullish wagers on SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics shares via swaps

Banks have also tightened the size of new trades and which firms they will give them to.

Swaps are a popular way for hedge funds to bet on assets without actually owning them and with the aid of leverage. In markets like South Korea, where few hedge funds have their own trading IDs with the exchange, swaps with brokers are the default way to bet on stocks.

Swap financing rates quoted by the banks on SK Hynix and Samsung were increased to a range from 300 basis points to as much as 11% over the secured overnight financing rate (SOFR), the people added. With SOFR standing at 3.6%, the new rates translate into nearly 15% at the top end of the range.

They have taken similar steps for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Morgan Stanley is turning away clients seeking new swap trades in the two Korean stocks while some second-tier banks have also stopped accepting additional orders in the past two weeks, the people said.

Some large global banks that are still willing to take new orders are assessing requests on a case-by-case basis, they added.

Bank of America, BNP Paribas and UBS are also lifting financing costs and restricting the size of swap trades in the two stocks.

One reason for the banks' pushback: banks were burned dramatically back in 2021, hedge fund Archegos used total return swaps (TRSs) to build highly leveraged, concentrated positions in a handful of stocks — most notably ViacomCBS and Discovery — without putting much capital up front, while evading regulatory disclosure limits and traditional margin. Once the stocks reversed their gains, the fund faced catastrophic margin calls and the banks that had funded these positions ended up nursing massive losses, most notably Credit Suisse which lost $5.5 billion and which was the precursor to the bank's eventual failure and acqusition by UBS a little over a year later. 

Archegos managed about $10 billion of its own money but leveraged it into an estimated $50 to $100 billion in stock exposure using total return swaps across several banks; a similar trade is taking place now with the two Korean memory stocks. The only question is why funds are involved, and stand to suffer catastrophic losses once the memory trade reverses. 

Banks are concerned that a major correction would affect the value of their clients’ holdings, leading to potential defaults on margin calls and ultimately threatening losses for banks, the people said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 12:40

Banks Curb FOMO-Chasing Levered Bets On Korean Tech Firms

Banks Curb FOMO-Chasing Levered Bets On Korean Tech Firms

SK Hynix has been THE poster-child for 'Vol Up, Spot Up' FOMO-chasing over the past few months of exuberant semi-shortage panic-buying...

And volumes in levered Semi trades has been astronomical...

With SK Hynix standing out among the most-levered bets...

Driven by massive speculative momentum (margin loans at record highs)...

...which faced huge forced liquidations amid the recent volatility...

So it really should not be a surprise that Bloomberg reports that global banks are curbing hedge funds’ leveraged bets on Asia’s top chipmakers including SK Hynix and Samsung.

According to people familiar with the matter, brokers including Citigroup, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs have raised the financing cost for hedge funds to take bullish wagers on SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics shares via swaps

Banks have also tightened the size of new trades and which firms they will give them to.

Swaps are a popular way for hedge funds to bet on assets without actually owning them and with the aid of leverage. In markets like South Korea, where few hedge funds have their own trading IDs with the exchange, swaps with brokers are the default way to bet on stocks.

Swap financing rates quoted by the banks on SK Hynix and Samsung were increased to a range from 300 basis points to as much as 11% over the secured overnight financing rate (SOFR), the people added. With SOFR standing at 3.6%, the new rates translate into nearly 15% at the top end of the range.

They have taken similar steps for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing.

Morgan Stanley is turning away clients seeking new swap trades in the two Korean stocks while some second-tier banks have also stopped accepting additional orders in the past two weeks, the people said.

Some large global banks that are still willing to take new orders are assessing requests on a case-by-case basis, they added.

Bank of America, BNP Paribas and UBS are also lifting financing costs and restricting the size of swap trades in the two stocks.

One reason for the banks' pushback: banks were burned dramatically back in 2021, hedge fund Archegos used total return swaps (TRSs) to build highly leveraged, concentrated positions in a handful of stocks — most notably ViacomCBS and Discovery — without putting much capital up front, while evading regulatory disclosure limits and traditional margin. Once the stocks reversed their gains, the fund faced catastrophic margin calls and the banks that had funded these positions ended up nursing massive losses, most notably Credit Suisse which lost $5.5 billion and which was the precursor to the bank's eventual failure and acqusition by UBS a little over a year later. 

Archegos managed about $10 billion of its own money but leveraged it into an estimated $50 to $100 billion in stock exposure using total return swaps across several banks; a similar trade is taking place now with the two Korean memory stocks. The only question is why funds are involved, and stand to suffer catastrophic losses once the memory trade reverses. 

Banks are concerned that a major correction would affect the value of their clients’ holdings, leading to potential defaults on margin calls and ultimately threatening losses for banks, the people said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 12:40

Kuwait Joins "Dark-Mode" Tanker Traffic Through Hormuz

Kuwait Joins "Dark-Mode" Tanker Traffic Through Hormuz

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Kuwait appears to have joined a growing bunch of Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that have moved to ship energy cargoes in dark mode through the Strait of Hormuz.

The liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carrier Gas Umm Al Rowaisat, which is owned by the national Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, has passed through the Strait in recent days, then transferred the cargo onto another ship which is currently en route to an Indian port, vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg showed on Thursday.

The Gas Umm Al Rowaisat loaded LPG in May in the Gulf, and then switched off its AIS positioning, before reappearing close to the Indian coast this weekend, according to the data.

This is the latest instance of a tanker going dark as it moves through the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE, Iraq, and other Gulf producers have increased shipments of oil, LNG, and LPG on tankers in dark mode in recent weeks.

Since the war began on February 28, tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has collapsed by 90% to 95% compared to pre-war levels, leaving the market about 13 million barrels per day (bpd) short of crude and fuel supply that was previously freely flowing to buyers.

Some oil cargoes continue to trickle through the critical chokepoint, but under increasingly opaque operating conditions, complicating the tracking of oil and gas flows and obscuring the visibility of how much energy supply actually reaches buyers these days.

More vessels are leaving the region after passing the Strait of Hormuz in a dark mode with transponders switched off, and those entering the Persian Gulf to load cargoes are increasingly doing the same.

The dark-mode tactics, once the feature of Iran-linked vessels aiming to skirt sanctions, are now the norm for the majority of commercial traffic at the Strait of Hormuz, energy flow-tracking firms say.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 12:20

Kuwait Joins "Dark-Mode" Tanker Traffic Through Hormuz

Kuwait Joins "Dark-Mode" Tanker Traffic Through Hormuz

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Kuwait appears to have joined a growing bunch of Middle Eastern oil and gas producers that have moved to ship energy cargoes in dark mode through the Strait of Hormuz.

The liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) carrier Gas Umm Al Rowaisat, which is owned by the national Kuwait Petroleum Corporation, has passed through the Strait in recent days, then transferred the cargo onto another ship which is currently en route to an Indian port, vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg showed on Thursday.

The Gas Umm Al Rowaisat loaded LPG in May in the Gulf, and then switched off its AIS positioning, before reappearing close to the Indian coast this weekend, according to the data.

This is the latest instance of a tanker going dark as it moves through the Strait of Hormuz. The UAE, Iraq, and other Gulf producers have increased shipments of oil, LNG, and LPG on tankers in dark mode in recent weeks.

Since the war began on February 28, tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has collapsed by 90% to 95% compared to pre-war levels, leaving the market about 13 million barrels per day (bpd) short of crude and fuel supply that was previously freely flowing to buyers.

Some oil cargoes continue to trickle through the critical chokepoint, but under increasingly opaque operating conditions, complicating the tracking of oil and gas flows and obscuring the visibility of how much energy supply actually reaches buyers these days.

More vessels are leaving the region after passing the Strait of Hormuz in a dark mode with transponders switched off, and those entering the Persian Gulf to load cargoes are increasingly doing the same.

The dark-mode tactics, once the feature of Iran-linked vessels aiming to skirt sanctions, are now the norm for the majority of commercial traffic at the Strait of Hormuz, energy flow-tracking firms say.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 12:20

Blackrock's Private Credit Fund Gates Investors Again After Redemption Requests Surge

Blackrock's Private Credit Fund Gates Investors Again After Redemption Requests Surge

The market may be in full-blown face-ripping bubble mode, and software stocks are now gripped in by a category 5 gamma squeeze hurricane, but not even that is helping the ongoing debacle that is private credit.

One week after Cliffwater's Private Credit fund gated investors for a second straight quarter, and days after Blackstone also gated investors in its private credit fund for the first time (recall during Q1, the fund allowed investors to redeem a record 7.9% after tapping senior executives to help finance the withdrawals with hundreds of millions of their own cash, but when faced with an even bigger flood of redemptions in Q2 it gave up and decided to join the gate parade), BlackRock capped redemptions from its flagship private credit fund for the second straight quarter after investors sought to pull about 13%, a sign that shareholders remain extremely nervous about the health of the $1.8 trillion private credit market.

Blackrock's HPS Corporate Lending Fund, known as HLEND, said it would allow only 5% redemptions, according to a filing Friday. The request for 13.3% was about 50% higher than the prior quarter when shareholders asked to redeem 9.3% of their shares. 

So far this quarter we have seen an acceleration in redemption requests as private credit investors clearly are concerned about their liquidity despite the raging bull market in all other asset classes.

“This liquidity feature is critical to HLEND’s ability to provide its investors with a premium return to public credit markets,” the firm said in a letter to investors. “This profile is further bolstered by continued subscriptions and distribution reinvestment, which together are expected to more than fully offset repurchases during the first six months of 2026.”

As Bloomberg reminds us, HLEND’s decision to cap redemptions in the previous quarter was the first major instance of a private credit manager taking action to enforce the limit and manage liquidity since concerns over underwriting standards and exposure to software businesses vulnerable to AI disruption bubbled to the surface early in the year.

The move was a contrast to its top rivals including Blackstone, which had gone to great lengths to satisfy investor demands for cash. But this quarter, Blackstone also enforced the 5% limit on its flagship private credit fund after investors asked to redeem even more money than in the prior period. 

Indeed, redemption requests are set to increase across the industry as investors redouble efforts to claw back money after being restricted. And there’s persistent concerns about the credit cycle turning, with industry leaders warning of a rise in defaults as artificial intelligence continues to disrupt businesses and borrowings from the era of ultra-low rates comes due.

HLEND has produced a 10.2% annualized total return since it was formed, the letter said, which is cold comfort to those investors who are hoping to redeem their profits and instead receive a gating notification. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 12:00

National Mall Vandalized With '8647' Markings Ahead Of Independence Celebrations

National Mall Vandalized With '8647' Markings Ahead Of Independence Celebrations

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Park Police and federal officials opened an investigation Thursday after a sizable marking resembling “8647” was etched into the lawn of the National Mall.

The incident occurred amid preparations for major events celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary of independence.

A Reuters photographer witnessed the marking from atop the Washington Monument before authorities, including members of the National Guard, arrived on scene near the World War II Memorial. The numbers, formed by discolored or browned grass against the surrounding grass, appeared to be massive.

The phrase “8647” comes from the restaurant slang “86,” which means to remove or get rid of, combined with 47 to reference President Donald Trump, currently sitting as the 47th president. Trump allies and the Department of Justice have interpreted the prevalence of the phrase as potential calls to violence as opposed to mere political expression.

An Interior Department spokesperson said in a statement that the act was “deranged vandalism.”

“Any threat against the president is taken very seriously by the Department, and our U.S. Park Police will investigate this incident and hold those responsible accountable,” the spokesperson said.

The U.S. Park Police said the cause of the grass discoloration has yet to be determined, though samples have been taken for testing as part of the continuing investigation.

This latest episode follows a previous high-profile case: the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on charges related to a social media post in 2025 featuring seashells arranged as “8647.”

“Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in April this year.

“Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals. We take these seriously, every single one of them.”

Federal prosecutors tied the term to alleged threats against the president. Comey contended that his actions were not intended as such, and he challenged the accusations on free speech grounds.

“A child knows what that meant,” Trump said in May 2025. “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear.”

The National Mall has hosted recent events such as the “Rededicate 250“ prayer celebration earlier this year, which attracted thousands to the grounds for a meditation on the nation’s founding principles.

Preparations are underway for Independence Day festivities, including military parades, museum exhibitions, and public programs honoring America’s heritage.

Trump has pledged to refurbish the Mall, encompassing efforts to restore features like the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and plans for the semiquincentennial celebrations, with a “Great American State Fair“ set to begin later this month.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:20

National Mall Vandalized With '8647' Markings Ahead Of Independence Celebrations

National Mall Vandalized With '8647' Markings Ahead Of Independence Celebrations

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Park Police and federal officials opened an investigation Thursday after a sizable marking resembling “8647” was etched into the lawn of the National Mall.

The incident occurred amid preparations for major events celebrating the nation’s 250th anniversary of independence.

A Reuters photographer witnessed the marking from atop the Washington Monument before authorities, including members of the National Guard, arrived on scene near the World War II Memorial. The numbers, formed by discolored or browned grass against the surrounding grass, appeared to be massive.

The phrase “8647” comes from the restaurant slang “86,” which means to remove or get rid of, combined with 47 to reference President Donald Trump, currently sitting as the 47th president. Trump allies and the Department of Justice have interpreted the prevalence of the phrase as potential calls to violence as opposed to mere political expression.

An Interior Department spokesperson said in a statement that the act was “deranged vandalism.”

“Any threat against the president is taken very seriously by the Department, and our U.S. Park Police will investigate this incident and hold those responsible accountable,” the spokesperson said.

The U.S. Park Police said the cause of the grass discoloration has yet to be determined, though samples have been taken for testing as part of the continuing investigation.

This latest episode follows a previous high-profile case: the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey on charges related to a social media post in 2025 featuring seashells arranged as “8647.”

“Threatening the life of the president of the United States will never be tolerated by the Department of Justice,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in April this year.

“Over the past year, this department has charged dozens of cases involving threats against all sorts of individuals. We take these seriously, every single one of them.”

Federal prosecutors tied the term to alleged threats against the president. Comey contended that his actions were not intended as such, and he challenged the accusations on free speech grounds.

“A child knows what that meant,” Trump said in May 2025. “If you’re the FBI director and you don’t know what that meant, that meant assassination, and it says it loud and clear.”

The National Mall has hosted recent events such as the “Rededicate 250“ prayer celebration earlier this year, which attracted thousands to the grounds for a meditation on the nation’s founding principles.

Preparations are underway for Independence Day festivities, including military parades, museum exhibitions, and public programs honoring America’s heritage.

Trump has pledged to refurbish the Mall, encompassing efforts to restore features like the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and plans for the semiquincentennial celebrations, with a “Great American State Fair“ set to begin later this month.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:20

UMich Sentiment Bounces Off Record Low In June, Inflation Fears Fade

UMich Sentiment Bounces Off Record Low In June, Inflation Fears Fade

After reaching all-time record lows in May, analysts expected UMich's Sentiment index to rebound modestly in preliminary June data and it did, up from 44.8 to 48.9 (well above 46.0 exp), with consumers experiencing some relief due to the early-month easing in gasoline prices.

Source: Bloomberg

"This measured improvement in sentiment was widespread, seen across age, education, and political party," said Surveys of Consumers Director Joanne Hsu, adding that "lower-income consumers exhibited a particularly strong sentiment increase, consistent with the fact that gasoline comprises a larger share of their budgets."

Well that will wreck the Democrats narrative...

Inflation expectations dropped in this early June data...

Once again we are confused because while the headline UMich inflation expectation over the next year declined, all political parties saw higher expectations (and Independents now have a higher inflation expectation that Democrats while Republican expectations are rising)...

Are they just making this shit up?

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:11

UMich Sentiment Bounces Off Record Low In June, Inflation Fears Fade

UMich Sentiment Bounces Off Record Low In June, Inflation Fears Fade

After reaching all-time record lows in May, analysts expected UMich's Sentiment index to rebound modestly in preliminary June data and it did, up from 44.8 to 48.9 (well above 46.0 exp), with consumers experiencing some relief due to the early-month easing in gasoline prices.

Source: Bloomberg

"This measured improvement in sentiment was widespread, seen across age, education, and political party," said Surveys of Consumers Director Joanne Hsu, adding that "lower-income consumers exhibited a particularly strong sentiment increase, consistent with the fact that gasoline comprises a larger share of their budgets."

Well that will wreck the Democrats narrative...

Inflation expectations dropped in this early June data...

Once again we are confused because while the headline UMich inflation expectation over the next year declined, all political parties saw higher expectations (and Independents now have a higher inflation expectation that Democrats while Republican expectations are rising)...

Are they just making this shit up?

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:11

Kennedy Center Appeals Order Requiring Removal Of Trump's Name

Kennedy Center Appeals Order Requiring Removal Of Trump's Name

Via American Greatness,

The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees voted Thursday to challenge a federal judge’s order requiring President Donald Trump’s name to be removed from the performing arts center.

According to court filings, the board formally appealed US District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling just before the court-imposed deadline for removing Trump’s name from the building and related materials.

Earlier Thursday, the board also voted to seek a stay of Cooper’s order, according to two individuals familiar with the meeting who spoke to The Washington Post.

To obtain a stay, attorneys for the center must demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal and argue that removing Trump’s name would cause irreparable harm.

The dispute stems from Cooper’s earlier ruling against the Trump administration and the Kennedy Center board.

The judge ordered Trump’s name removed from the exterior of the building, the center’s website, merchandise and other materials associated with the institution. Cooper also blocked a planned two-year closure for renovations, finding the move unlawful.

The court had given the Kennedy Center until June 12 to comply with the order.

Cooper sided with Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-OH, an ex officio member of the board who challenged the decision to rename the center.

The judge concluded that Congress established the institution as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy following his assassination and that the board lacked the authority to alter that designation.

Before filing its appeal, Kennedy Center officials indicated they would comply with the court’s order while weighing further legal action.

“We are complying with the court’s order while evaluating all legal options to preserve this revitalization and recognize President Trump’s leadership,” Roma Daravi, the center’s vice president of public relations, previously said.

The center has already removed Trump’s name from several official platforms, including its website, YouTube channel and invitations to its annual honors ceremony.

However, references to Trump remained visible Thursday on the Kennedy Center’s Instagram, Facebook and X social media accounts.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00

Kennedy Center Appeals Order Requiring Removal Of Trump's Name

Kennedy Center Appeals Order Requiring Removal Of Trump's Name

Via American Greatness,

The Kennedy Center’s board of trustees voted Thursday to challenge a federal judge’s order requiring President Donald Trump’s name to be removed from the performing arts center.

According to court filings, the board formally appealed US District Judge Christopher Cooper’s ruling just before the court-imposed deadline for removing Trump’s name from the building and related materials.

Earlier Thursday, the board also voted to seek a stay of Cooper’s order, according to two individuals familiar with the meeting who spoke to The Washington Post.

To obtain a stay, attorneys for the center must demonstrate a likelihood of success on appeal and argue that removing Trump’s name would cause irreparable harm.

The dispute stems from Cooper’s earlier ruling against the Trump administration and the Kennedy Center board.

The judge ordered Trump’s name removed from the exterior of the building, the center’s website, merchandise and other materials associated with the institution. Cooper also blocked a planned two-year closure for renovations, finding the move unlawful.

The court had given the Kennedy Center until June 12 to comply with the order.

Cooper sided with Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-OH, an ex officio member of the board who challenged the decision to rename the center.

The judge concluded that Congress established the institution as a living memorial to President John F. Kennedy following his assassination and that the board lacked the authority to alter that designation.

Before filing its appeal, Kennedy Center officials indicated they would comply with the court’s order while weighing further legal action.

“We are complying with the court’s order while evaluating all legal options to preserve this revitalization and recognize President Trump’s leadership,” Roma Daravi, the center’s vice president of public relations, previously said.

The center has already removed Trump’s name from several official platforms, including its website, YouTube channel and invitations to its annual honors ceremony.

However, references to Trump remained visible Thursday on the Kennedy Center’s Instagram, Facebook and X social media accounts.

Tyler Durden Fri, 06/12/2026 - 10:00

Pages