NATO Chief Backs Renewed US Strikes On Iran As 'Absolutely Necessary' 

Even if most individual NATO members are still reluctant to jump on board Trump's Iran war, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is busy praising American military action there amid the annual summit in Ankara.

Rutte has freshly described the overnight fresh US military strikes on Iran in response to Tehran attacking multiple international shipping vessels "absolutely necessary". Rutte voiced agreement with Trump that Iran's actions violated the MoU ceasefire agreement with the US, which required a response.

Getty Images

"When you have a ceasefire and Iran ​is basically violating the ceasefire, I think it is totally ​crucial that the US forcefully react," Rutte told reporters.

The new US actions resulted in a swift Iranian response, in the form of Iranian drones and missiles on Kuwait and Bahrain, which the latter country decried as a "dangerous escalation".

"The era of bullying and extortion is over," Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X. "It leads nowhere. We don’t fold."

As we reported earlier, President Trump has called the Iranians "scum" and declared the ceasefire "over": "To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore; they're scum," Trump told reporters. 

All this naturally brings up the question of 'what's next?'

Certainly the Iranians seem in the mood for a fight, and Washington feels it can't let attacks on international shipping slide - so all for this could portend a return to all-out war.

Reporter: What is your reaction to the recent U.S. attacks on Iran?

NATO's Rutte: I think it was absolutely necessary. Iran is violating the ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/kd6Nr9Dtwx

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 8, 2026

It's been 129 days since the start of Operation Epic Fury - a conflict which US officials had promised would be 'fast' - and the public has been 'assured' it is not a quagmire. Yet here we are.

As for Rutte, it's unclear what his strategy for Iran, if any, might be. He's clearly trying to keep Trump happy, playing Trump whisperer in Turkey, vis-a-vis the NATO alliance and its continued funding. Here was some Trump commentary on NATO 'unity' in Ankara:

“Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate. They don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits,” he said at a press conference in Ankara with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

Trump also reignited inter-alliance tensions when he resurfaced his desire to take control of Greenland, a territory of NATO member Denmark.

The NATO chief has also newly stated could be no doubt over the "complete commitment of the United States to NATO" - which he claimed also defends the United States and is thus invaluable.

via CNBC

"But there's ​also the expectation ​that the ⁠Europeans and the Canadians will equalize their spending with the United States, which I ​think is completely fair," he added.

"The good ​news ⁠is that this is the big win today. It's the loss for Putin, it is a win for President ⁠Trump ​that the Europeans and the Canadians ​are doing exactly that," Rutte said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 08:25

Senate Defense Bill Would Establish Fund For Government To Buy Into Private Companies

Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,

A new bill in Congress would enshrine into law the ability of the executive branch to buy into private companies, and create a fund to finance the purchases.

The Pentagon in Arlington, Va., in this file photo. Carolyn Kaster/AP

The current Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act gives the Defense Department explicit authority to take ownership stakes in companies. A provision titled "Equity Investments and Related Matters" establishes a new "Department of Defense Equity Investment Account" within the Treasury Department, which the Defense Department can use to make equity investments in critical minerals, materials, chemicals, and batteries.

While administration officials say this move allows the Defense Department to better align its goals with the private sector and for taxpayers to earn a return if the companies do well, critics have raised concerns about establishing a legal basis for government expansion into the private sector.

Government investments in companies under this bill would be limited to a 50 percent stake, non-voting shares, and a dollar cap of $500 million.

Michael Duffey, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, stated in January that the Trump administration is "fundamentally shifting our approach to securing our munitions supply chain."

"By investing directly in suppliers we are building the resilient industrial base needed for the Arsenal of Freedom," Duffey said.

The Pentagon has been actively buying stakes in private companies over the past year, including a $400 million investment in MP Materials, a rare-earths mining company, in 2025, and a $1 billion investment a L3Harris Technologies, a rocket motor manufacturer, in April, as well as a 10 percent stake in chipmaker Intel.

"Equity ownership can align incentives in ways that grants and subsidies cannot," Carliss Chatman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, told The Epoch Times.

"If taxpayers are assuming significant financial risk to help develop strategically important industries, an equity stake allows the public to participate in the upside if those investments succeed," she said. "Equity may also provide the government with governance rights, access to information, or long-term alignment that grants generally do not."

Potential For Conflicts Of Interest

Critics, however, say this initiative marks a new expansion of the state into private industry. While the U.S. government has taken stakes in banks, insurers, and carmakers in the past, those have been short-term measures to rescue companies from bankruptcy, and typically done with congressional approval and oversight.

"The problem begins with creating the statutory architecture for a Pentagon stock portfolio in the first place," Cato economist Tad DeHaven stated in a June 16 report. "That means Congress would not merely be tolerating a one-off emergency action but would instead provide the Pentagon with a standing legal pathway to acquire ownership stakes in private companies."

The Defense Department can legitimately support strategic industries through grants, loans, and government contracts, DeHaven states, but "ownership means continuing federal financial interest in a company's valuation, which is precisely what creates the favoritism, conflict of interest, and political pressure risks Congress should be avoiding."

Duffey stated at a March 4 House Armed Services Committee hearing that these equity investments "create a partnership with industry, an opportunity, not only for government to provide capital to lead to the kind of growth such as in the L3 deal, but it also crowds in additional private capital."

However, the purchases have drawn scrutiny. Critics say that the Defense Department's investment in L3 Harris Technologies could create a conflict of interest, with the government's role as L3's largest customer and decision-maker regarding procurement, as well as a shareholder that will benefit if the company performs well.

This raises questions about whether procurement decisions will be truly impartial, analysts say, given that companies such as Northrop Grumman and Anduril Industries, in which the state has no stake, also manufacture rocket motors and compete in the same markets as L3.

"More money can help, but we also don't want to discourage fair competition that encourages people to get into this space," Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) stated at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. "If they think the government's going to come in and just put their their thumb on the scale, it could discourage some of the investment we've seen."

State ownership raises other issues, as well.

Corporate Governance

"Equity ownership introduces governance questions that grants typically avoid," Chatman said.

"Once the government becomes a shareholder, questions arise regarding voting rights, fiduciary expectations, political influence over corporate decision-making, and eventual exit strategies," she said. "The legal design of the investment therefore matters as much as the decision to invest itself."

Federal ownership of private companies is becoming popular on both sides of the political aisle. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently proposed the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, in which the government would take a 50 percent stake in America's largest artificial intelligence companies.

"This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us - and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people," Sanders posted on X on June 1.

Critics, however, say this is a slippery slope to more government control over Americans' private lives. They point to attempts by the Biden administration to pressure private companies to censor Americans and to fire employees who refused COVID-19 injections, as well as the Canadian government's use of private banks and insurance companies to crush truckers' protests of that country's COVID-19 policies.

"Consider the Biden administration's pressure applied to social media firms during the COVID lockdowns," Jeffrey Degner, a policy expert at the American Institute for Economic Research, told the Daily Signal. "Imagine the silencing of free speech if the government had already taken ownership stakes in these firms!"

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 08:05

How America's Wealth Distribution Has Changed Over The Last 40 Years

Wealth reflects the value of everything households own, including homes, stocks, businesses, and savings, minus what they owe.

Because different wealth groups own very different mixes of assets, long-term market trends can reshape how the nation’s wealth is divided.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Boyan Girginov, tracks how U.S. household wealth has shifted across wealth groups from Q3 1989 to Q4 2025 using data from the Federal Reserve’s Distributional Financial Accounts.

Wealth of the Top 1% vs. the Bottom 90%

The table below shows how the wealth distribution has changed over the last 35 years:

The top 1% built its wealth primarily through stocks and businesses, assets that have soared in value for decades. In fact, every group below the top 1% has lost share since 1989: even the next 9% of households, from the 90th to 99th percentiles, slipped from 38.0% to 36.4%.

Wealth further down the ladder is tied mostly to the family home, which appreciates far more slowly than the stock market. Much of the bottom 50%’s net worth is home equity, and many households in that group have little or no net worth at all. That’s why the gap between the top and the bottom has widened over the last 36 years.

How Markets Move Each Group’s Share

Market swings move each group’s share differently, depending on the assets its households own.

Every boom rewards whoever holds financial assets, and those gains compound: between 1989 and 2025, the top 0.1% increased its share of household wealth from 8.6% to 14.5%, while the top 1% as a whole climbed from 22.8% to 31.9%.

Busts fall hardest on those with the least cushion. The 2008 housing crash crushed the value of ordinary households’ main asset, and the bottom 50%’s share eventually fell to a record low of 0.4% before recovering to 2.5% today.

Over the full period, no group lost more ground than the upper-middle 40%, households between the 50th and 90th percentiles, whose share slid from 35.7% to 29.2% as home values trailed the stock market.

Wealth Distribution by Income Segment (1989-2025)

See all the data for the last 36 years below:

Time Period Top 0.1% Top 1%
(excl. top 0.1%) Top 10%
(excl. top 1%) Upper-Middle 40%
(excl. top 10%) Bottom 50% Q3 1989 8.6% 14.2% 38.0% 35.7% 3.5% Q4 1989 8.7% 14.2% 37.9% 35.7% 3.4% Q1 1990 8.6% 14.1% 37.7% 36.1% 3.5% Q2 1990 8.7% 14.2% 37.6% 36.1% 3.4% Q3 1990 8.5% 14.0% 37.3% 36.7% 3.5% Q4 1990 8.7% 14.1% 37.2% 36.4% 3.6% Q1 1991 8.9% 14.2% 37.0% 36.3% 3.5% Q2 1991 8.8% 14.2% 36.9% 36.5% 3.5% Q3 1991 8.8% 14.3% 36.6% 36.6% 3.7% Q4 1991 9.1% 14.4% 36.5% 36.3% 3.7% Q1 1992 9.0% 14.4% 36.3% 36.5% 3.8% Q2 1992 8.9% 14.3% 36.3% 36.7% 3.8% Q3 1992 8.9% 14.1% 36.2% 36.7% 4.1% Q4 1992 9.2% 14.3% 36.1% 36.4% 4.0% Q1 1993 9.5% 14.5% 36.1% 36.1% 3.8% Q2 1993 9.6% 14.5% 36.0% 36.1% 3.8% Q3 1993 9.8% 14.7% 35.7% 36.0% 3.8% Q4 1993 10.1% 14.8% 35.6% 35.8% 3.7% Q1 1994 10.2% 14.9% 35.5% 35.9% 3.5% Q2 1994 10.3% 15.0% 35.3% 35.9% 3.4% Q3 1994 10.5% 15.1% 35.0% 35.9% 3.5% Q4 1994 10.8% 15.2% 34.8% 35.7% 3.5% Q1 1995 10.9% 15.4% 34.7% 35.5% 3.5% Q2 1995 11.1% 15.6% 34.2% 35.5% 3.6% Q3 1995 11.4% 15.9% 33.9% 35.1% 3.7% Q4 1995 11.5% 15.9% 34.0% 34.9% 3.6% Q1 1996 11.5% 15.9% 34.2% 35.0% 3.5% Q2 1996 11.4% 15.9% 34.2% 35.1% 3.4% Q3 1996 11.3% 15.8% 34.3% 35.2% 3.4% Q4 1996 11.4% 15.8% 34.5% 35.0% 3.4% Q1 1997 11.2% 15.7% 34.6% 35.0% 3.4% Q2 1997 11.4% 15.9% 34.7% 34.6% 3.4% Q3 1997 11.4% 15.9% 34.8% 34.4% 3.4% Q4 1997 11.5% 16.0% 35.0% 34.2% 3.3% Q1 1998 11.7% 16.1% 35.1% 33.8% 3.3% Q2 1998 11.7% 16.1% 35.2% 33.8% 3.2% Q3 1998 11.2% 15.9% 35.1% 34.3% 3.5% Q4 1998 11.5% 16.2% 35.4% 33.6% 3.3% Q1 1999 11.2% 16.2% 35.5% 33.7% 3.4% Q2 1999 11.3% 16.4% 35.6% 33.5% 3.2% Q3 1999 11.0% 16.3% 35.6% 33.8% 3.3% Q4 1999 11.3% 16.6% 35.9% 32.9% 3.2% Q1 2000 11.2% 16.7% 35.9% 33.0% 3.2% Q2 2000 10.9% 16.6% 35.9% 33.4% 3.2% Q3 2000 10.7% 16.6% 35.8% 33.6% 3.3% Q4 2000 10.4% 16.4% 35.8% 34.2% 3.2% Q1 2001 9.9% 16.2% 35.7% 35.0% 3.2% Q2 2001 9.9% 16.3% 35.8% 34.9% 3.1% Q3 2001 9.6% 16.0% 35.8% 35.6% 3.1% Q4 2001 9.7% 16.2% 35.9% 35.3% 3.0% Q1 2002 9.6% 16.2% 36.0% 35.3% 3.0% Q2 2002 9.4% 16.2% 36.0% 35.5% 2.9% Q3 2002 9.0% 16.0% 36.0% 36.0% 3.0% Q4 2002 9.0% 16.1% 36.0% 36.0% 2.9% Q1 2003 8.8% 16.0% 36.2% 36.1% 2.8% Q2 2003 9.2% 16.2% 36.5% 35.5% 2.6% Q3 2003 9.2% 16.3% 36.5% 35.3% 2.6% Q4 2003 9.5% 16.5% 36.6% 34.8% 2.6% Q1 2004 9.9% 16.7% 36.5% 34.4% 2.5% Q2 2004 9.9% 16.7% 36.5% 34.3% 2.6% Q3 2004 10.0% 16.8% 36.5% 34.2% 2.5% Q4 2004 10.2% 16.8% 36.6% 33.9% 2.5% Q1 2005 10.2% 16.7% 36.7% 33.9% 2.5% Q2 2005 10.4% 16.8% 36.9% 33.6% 2.4% Q3 2005 10.5% 16.8% 36.9% 33.3% 2.5% Q4 2005 10.5% 16.7% 36.9% 33.3% 2.5% Q1 2006 11.0% 16.9% 37.1% 32.6% 2.4% Q2 2006 11.0% 16.8% 37.2% 32.6% 2.4% Q3 2006 11.1% 16.9% 37.3% 32.4% 2.4% Q4 2006 11.3% 16.9% 37.4% 32.0% 2.3% Q1 2007 11.6% 17.0% 37.6% 31.6% 2.2% Q2 2007 11.7% 17.0% 37.8% 31.3% 2.1% Q3 2007 11.9% 17.1% 38.0% 31.0% 2.0% Q4 2007 11.8% 17.0% 38.3% 31.2% 1.7% Q1 2008 11.6% 16.9% 38.5% 31.5% 1.5% Q2 2008 11.4% 17.0% 38.6% 31.5% 1.5% Q3 2008 11.2% 17.0% 38.9% 31.9% 1.2% Q4 2008 10.6% 17.1% 38.8% 32.5% 1.0% Q1 2009 10.3% 17.1% 39.0% 32.9% 0.7% Q2 2009 10.3% 17.3% 39.2% 32.5% 0.7% Q3 2009 10.6% 17.5% 39.4% 31.9% 0.7% Q4 2009 10.5% 17.6% 39.6% 31.8% 0.6% Q1 2010 10.6% 17.6% 39.7% 31.6% 0.5% Q2 2010 10.5% 17.6% 39.9% 31.5% 0.5% Q3 2010 10.8% 17.7% 40.0% 31.0% 0.5% Q4 2010 11.0% 17.8% 40.1% 30.7% 0.4% Q1 2011 11.3% 17.9% 40.0% 30.5% 0.4% Q2 2011 11.3% 17.8% 39.9% 30.5% 0.4% Q3 2011 11.1% 17.7% 39.8% 31.0% 0.4% Q4 2011 11.3% 17.7% 39.8% 30.8% 0.4% Q1 2012 11.5% 17.9% 39.7% 30.4% 0.4% Q2 2012 11.6% 17.8% 39.6% 30.5% 0.6% Q3 2012 11.8% 17.8% 39.5% 30.3% 0.6% Q4 2012 11.8% 17.8% 39.4% 30.3% 0.7% Q1 2013 12.0% 17.8% 39.4% 30.2% 0.7% Q2 2013 12.0% 17.6% 39.4% 30.2% 0.8% Q3 2013 12.1% 17.6% 39.3% 30.1% 0.9% Q4 2013 12.2% 17.6% 39.4% 30.0% 0.9% Q1 2014 12.3% 17.7% 39.4% 29.7% 0.9% Q2 2014 12.5% 17.9% 39.3% 29.3% 1.0% Q3 2014 12.5% 17.9% 39.3% 29.3% 1.0% Q4 2014 12.6% 18.0% 39.4% 29.1% 1.0% Q1 2015 12.6% 18.0% 39.3% 28.9% 1.0% Q2 2015 12.7% 18.1% 39.4% 28.8% 1.1% Q3 2015 12.5% 18.0% 39.4% 29.0% 1.1% Q4 2015 12.5% 18.1% 39.3% 28.9% 1.2% Q1 2016 12.5% 18.1% 39.3% 28.9% 1.2% Q2 2016 12.6% 18.2% 39.4% 28.7% 1.2% Q3 2016 12.6% 18.2% 39.2% 28.7% 1.3% Q4 2016 12.5% 18.2% 39.2% 28.8% 1.3% Q1 2017 12.5% 18.2% 39.3% 28.7% 1.3% Q2 2017 12.5% 18.2% 39.3% 28.6% 1.4% Q3 2017 12.5% 18.2% 39.3% 28.6% 1.4% Q4 2017 12.5% 18.3% 39.3% 28.4% 1.4% Q1 2018 12.4% 18.2% 39.3% 28.6% 1.5% Q2 2018 12.3% 18.2% 39.4% 28.5% 1.6% Q3 2018 12.4% 18.3% 39.5% 28.4% 1.5% Q4 2018 11.9% 18.1% 39.6% 28.8% 1.6% Q1 2019 12.3% 18.3% 39.7% 28.1% 1.6% Q2 2019 12.3% 18.3% 39.7% 28.2% 1.6% Q3 2019 12.1% 18.3% 39.7% 28.2% 1.7% Q4 2019 12.4% 18.2% 39.5% 28.2% 1.7% Q1 2020 11.7% 17.5% 39.3% 29.6% 1.8% Q2 2020 12.3% 17.6% 38.9% 29.3% 2.0% Q3 2020 12.5% 17.5% 38.6% 29.3% 2.1% Q4 2020 13.0% 17.6% 38.3% 29.0% 2.2% Q1 2021 13.2% 17.5% 37.9% 29.1% 2.3% Q2 2021 13.4% 17.4% 37.6% 29.2% 2.3% Q3 2021 13.5% 17.3% 37.4% 29.4% 2.4% Q4 2021 13.7% 17.2% 37.2% 29.4% 2.4% Q1 2022 13.6% 16.9% 36.9% 30.1% 2.5% Q2 2022 13.1% 16.3% 36.5% 31.3% 2.7% Q3 2022 13.2% 16.3% 36.4% 31.4% 2.7% Q4 2022 13.4% 16.5% 36.5% 31.0% 2.6% Q1 2023 13.5% 16.6% 36.5% 30.8% 2.6% Q2 2023 13.5% 16.6% 36.4% 30.9% 2.6% Q3 2023 13.4% 16.5% 36.4% 31.1% 2.5% Q4 2023 13.6% 16.7% 36.5% 30.7% 2.5% Q1 2024 13.7% 16.8% 36.5% 30.5% 2.5% Q2 2024 13.7% 16.8% 36.4% 30.6% 2.5% Q3 2024 14.0% 16.9% 36.5% 30.2% 2.4% Q4 2024 14.0% 17.0% 36.4% 30.1% 2.5% Q1 2025 13.9% 16.9% 36.4% 30.3% 2.5% Q2 2025 14.1% 17.1% 36.4% 30.1% 2.5% Q3 2025 14.4% 17.3% 36.4% 29.4% 2.5% Q4 2025 14.5% 17.4% 36.4% 29.2% 2.5%

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Global Wealth Pyramid in 2025 on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 05:45

Spain: 70% Of Tested 'Unaccompanied Minor' Immigrants Are Actually Adults

Via Remix News,

The Spanish city of Madrid has delivered a stark confirmation of long-standing suspicions about unaccompanied foreign immigrants claiming to be minors. When this group undergoes rigorous medical age verification, 70 percent turn out to be adults over 18.

This is not a handful of isolated incidents but a systemic pattern that has become the norm in Spain’s capital. The findings, detailed in official data and reported by Spanish outlet El Debate, underscore a growing “farce” in the handling of unaccompanied minor claims across the country.

In 2024, authorities in the Madrid region opened 848 age-determination proceedings for individuals claiming to be unaccompanied foreign minors — a sharp increase from 482 the previous year. More than half of these cases were archived because the claimants abandoned the process before completing the key medical test, which is a wrist X-ray for bone age assessment.

Of the 378 individuals who underwent the test, only 112 were confirmed as minors, while 266 were determined to be adults — approximately 70 percent.

The number of detected frauds tripled compared to the prior year. Since 2018, Madrid has handled more than 11,000 unaccompanied foreign minors in its protection system. In 2024 alone, 2,442 new young people entered the system. The regional government has already filed 29 police complaints after its own checks revealed adults improperly placed in minor-protection facilities.

Nationally, the Fiscalía General del Estado reported 7,562 pre-procedural age-determination cases in 2024. Of these, 2,457 concluded the individuals were adults, while many others either abandoned proceedings or received the benefit of the doubt.

Real benefits for fraud

As Remix News has reported in the past, claiming minor status grants significant advantages under Spanish and EU rules, including placement in specialized protection centers with housing, education, healthcare, and legal safeguards.

There is also significantly greater difficulty in deportation; and, in many cases, pathways to family reunification or residence permits unavailable to adults. Many claimants disappear from centers once age verification begins, avoiding confirmation of their true age.

Similar fraud seen across Europe

This Madrid revelation is far from unique. Remix News has extensively covered parallel cases of age fraud by migrants claiming unaccompanied minor status throughout Europe, often involving the same nationalities, notably Algerians, Moroccans, Tunisians, and Afghans.

France has seen some of the starkest figures. In the Marne department, bone analyses of 240 individuals claiming to be unaccompanied minors found that 80 percent (192 people) were actually adults.

French MP Charles de Courson highlighted the financial burden in a parliamentary speech, “Eighty percent of unaccompanied migrants in France’s northeast Marne department who declared themselves thus are not minors, with the cost of caring for these 160 false minors costing €5,000 per month, which equals for €60,000 per year for each one.”

A separate 2019 experiment by the Paris prosecutor’s office examined 154 formally identified “minors” and found 91.6 percent (141) were adults via medical exams. Prosecutors noted that adults were systematically exploiting the protective regime established for minors under a 1945 law.

Belgium reported comparable results. A study of data from Justice Minister Koen Geens showed that of 4,563 migrants declaring themselves minors, authorities doubted 2,546 claims. Age tests on a sample revealed that 73.7 percent were over 18. Flemish MP Tom Van Grieken stated bluntly: “Asylum seekers guilty of age fraud should be denied the right to asylum.”

Sweden recorded an even higher rate: health authorities found 84 percent of tested “child migrants” were actually 18 or older. In Germany, forensic examinations in Münster showed around 40 percent of examined “unaccompanied minor refugees” were demonstrably adults, with many sharing suspicious January 1 birthdates — a common indicator of fabricated identities.

Remix News has also documented specific incidents in Spain itself that align with this pattern. In one Madrid case reported in October 2025, a Moroccan man accused of raping a 14-year-old girl claimed to be 17; age verification determined he was likely 23, with 14 prior convictions, leading to his case being transferred to adult court.

A European Parliament fact-finding mission to Spain’s Canary Islands similarly found that roughly half of unaccompanied minors there were actually adults, highlighting failures in age assessment amid high illegal arrivals.

An issue across Europe

Across Europe, the incentive structure remains largely unchanged, with minor status providing immediate protection and resources while adult status often leads to faster removal proceedings. Medical tests, such as bone density, dental, or wrist X-rays, are imperfect but consistently reveal high fraud rates when applied. Some countries are reacting with stricter testing, but often left-wing parties want to ban such tests altogether.

The Madrid Fiscalía’s 2024 data adds Spain to the growing list of European jurisdictions where official statistics confirm that the “unaccompanied minor” category is being heavily exploited. With over 11,000 cases handled in Madrid alone since 2018 and frauds tripling in a single year, the scale suggests the problem is not anecdotal but structural.

As European governments grapple with migration pressures, these consistent findings from across Europe show a reality that is not going away. Without adequate and robust testing age verification and meaningful consequences for fraud, the EU system will continue to reward deception from Europe’s rapidly growing illegal migrant population.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 05:00

Trump Signals Willingness To Sell Turkey F-35 Jets Despite Loud Netanyahu Protests

Israel and Turkey are in a bit of a tug-of-war with President Trump and potential major arms deals hanging in the balance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had vehemently complained to Trump in a Friday call about Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's escalating anti-Israel rhetoric, officials cited in Axios said.

Netanyahu specifically pressed Trump block sales of weapons systems to Turkey, especially those that would help Turkey modernize its air force. Of central issue remains potential F-35 transfer, which if carried through would outrage Israeli leaders. Turkey was blocked from the program in 2019 after the NATO member state went through with acquiring Russia's S-400 air defense system on fears that the US advanced fighter jets classified systems could be compromised.

via Associated Press

Also central to current negotiations with Washington is a $700 million deal for new engines for Turkey's fighter jets. Turkey's welcome ceremony for Trump and his entourage was expectedly lavish, complete with honor guards and military bands, and even cannons firing.

Erdogan has said that Trump is adding "might and strength" to the summit. Trump has in turn said of the Turkish president, "We are great friends" - and extolled the beauty of Turkey's modernized infrastructure. Turkey is a country to be "reckoned" with, Trump said soon after touching down, "and the nice part is that because of the relationship that we have, it’s all gone very well."

Most importantly, Trump, signaled his intent to sell Turkey F-35 fighter jets, per CNN:

US President Donald Trump said he would soon decide whether to sell Turkey F-35 fighter jets despite a Congressional ban as he praised the country as more loyal than other recipients of the plane.

"We have a better relationship with Turkey, and Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal," Trump said, arguing many believe the country should be able to purchase the F-35s, despite its purchase of a Russian air defense system.

Trump said the sales are "something certainly we consider."

"It’s a great plane, it’s the best, currently the best plane by far, and certainly something we will consider," he said.

This is after prior reporting indicated that "US officials told CNN earlier that Trump is expected to signal this week that he is willing to sell the country F-35s, reversing a ban he put in place during his first term that has since been ratified into law." Erdogan has newly stated that Turkey has been promised five F-35 jets.

Reporter: Mr. President, are you going to sell F-35s to Türkiye, and what about the legal restrictions?

Trump: We're going to make a decision. I would think that many people — I can tell, many people sitting right here — would say, why wouldn't we do that?

We have a better… pic.twitter.com/VkFnKWorxk

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 7, 2026

However, getting around the congressional ban remains to be seen. But Trump said enough in Ankara on Tuesday to put the Israelis on edge. 

Netanyahu told Fox News on Monday that "Turkey is a great country, but it's governed by a man who calls openly for the annihilation of Israel" - in reference to Erdogan. "He occupies half of Cyprus, a NATO country. He's threatening Greece, another NATO country, and he talks openly about conquering Jerusalem."

The Israeli leader also said that giving Ankara F-35s or fighter jet engines would "upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority and also by, I think, by America's posture in the Middle East."

“This is a battle of freedom versus fanaticism… the ones that have been fighting it is Israel and the United States.”@netanyahu speaks ahead of the NATO summit: pic.twitter.com/ncnqCaMoDo

— FOX & Friends (@foxandfriends) July 6, 2026

Turkey is also seen as supportive of the new Sharaa government in Damascus, at a moment Israeli forces are occupying portions of southern Syria. The two rival powers have nearly directly clashed at times over their competing Syria policies.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 04:15

Watch: MEP Forces EU To Address Wave Of Savage Migrant Attacks Throughout Europe

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

In a decisive move highlighting the growing crisis of migrant violence across Europe, Sweden Democrats MEP Charlie Weimers has successfully pushed the European Parliament to debate recent fatal attacks on native Europeans, and their direct implications for public security on the streets.

Weimers' intervention comes in the immediate wake of the savage beating death of 32-year-old Swedish father Christian Zedig, ensuring the tragedy cannot be swept aside as just another "isolated incident" by those invested in open borders policies.

Weimers delivered a stark address to the chamber, laying bare the human cost:

SD begärde idag en debatt i EU-parlamentet om mordet på Christian Zedig.

Förslaget bifölls. Debatten äger rum 19.45 ikväll.

Jag kan inte begripa varför de SVENSKA socialdemokraterna röstade nej.

Jag ser fram emot kritiska frågor från media.

Debattens titel: "Parliament... pic.twitter.com/GTlXiz98fI

— Charlie Weimers MEP ?? (@weimers) July 6, 2026

"In recent days, Europe has once again been reminded of the very real threats to public security on our streets. In Copenhagen, Swedish police officer Christian Zedig, a 32-year-old father of two, was brutally beaten to death at a world cup fan zone," Weimers urged.

He continued, "He was off duty, simply watching a match with friends, when he tried to calm a situation, he was attacked and stomped to death. In Milan Italy, a Gambian migrant stabbed an innocent man 20 times. He said it was for fun, and that he would do it again when he gets out. These are not isolated incidents, they are part of a broader pattern that is undermining the safety of ordinary Europeans."

His words cut through the usual parliamentary fog, naming the pattern that too many officials prefer to obscure. The debate, later today will addresses the urgent need to confront how unchecked migration is eroding safety in European cities and public spaces.

Weimers expressed astonishment that Swedish Social Democrats voted against even holding the discussion, posting the voting record as evidence. This reluctance speaks volumes about priorities: shielding failed migration policies over acknowledging the suffering of ordinary citizens and their families.

The Zedig family's nightmare began at a seemingly ordinary World Cup fan zone in Copenhagen's Islands Brygge area. Christian had traveled with friends to watch Norway face Ivory Coast before Sweden's own match. Wearing his national team shirt, he was enjoying the atmosphere when violence erupted.

A group of seven or eight young African men, according to eyewitnesses speaking to Danish media, arrived not to watch football but to provoke. They taunted supporters, threw beer and objects after Norway's late winning goal by Erling Haaland, then rushed a table of Scandinavian fans.

Zedig was punched in the head, collapsed immediately, and was then repeatedly stomped by multiple attackers while lying defenseless on the ground. The assailants fled the scene. Despite medical efforts, Zedig succumbed to his catastrophic injuries, leaving behind a devastated wife and two young daughters who will grow up without their father. Swedish police confirmed the death of their colleague, with local officers holding a memorial gathering.

His sister's emotional tribute captured the family's anguish: "My beautiful and thoroughly good-hearted brother. How will we make it without you with us? Who gave them the right to take you away from us? The grief is never-ending." Friends and colleagues described him as a dedicated officer and family man, making the senseless loss even more painful.

The main suspect, identified as an African migrant with a history of prior assaults and criminal convictions, eventually turned himself in to Danish police after authorities publicly released his photograph. He was arrested and remanded in custody for up to 26 days. While the formal charge had not yet been upgraded to murder at the time of initial proceedings, the facts of the mob attack speak for themselves.

This horror is the latest in a string of incidents that Weimers and like-minded MEPs have been warning about for years.

Media handling of the tragedy has only added fuel to public anger. Danish broadcaster TV2 aired live footage of a minute of silence held for Zedig before the later Norway-Brazil match at the same fan zone. The clip reportedly captured migrants ignoring the tribute or even laughing.

When the segment re-aired in a news broadcast, those seconds were conveniently edited out, shielding viewers from the disrespect.

Danish state TV channel has shortened yesterday's viral video of migrants ignoring the minute of silence for the Swedish football supporter Christian.

The minute of silence was held before the Norway-Brazil match at the fan zone in Copenhagen where Christian was beaten to death...

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 6, 2026

Weimers has consistently exposed the consequences of mass immigration and demographic shifts. In March, alongside other lawmakers, he helped spotlight the spread of no-go zones tied to rapid Islamization and uncontrolled inflows.

A New Direction report analyzed high-crime neighborhoods across Europe, ranking areas like Franc Moisin in France and Rosengård in Malmö by metrics of violence, parallel societies, unemployment, school failure, and emergency service breakdowns. These zones show strong correlations with high shares of foreign-born and Muslim populations, where state authority recedes and other rules prevail.

French MEP Marion Maréchal emphasized the data: France alone has hundreds of sensitive urban areas disproportionately linked to these dynamics. The report serves as a documented indictment of policies that have allowed parallel societies to flourish.

At a Warsaw conference around the same time, experts warned bluntly that Europeans are committing demographic suicide. Low native birth rates combined with high migration from younger, culturally distant populations create unsustainable pressures.

Outdated tools like the Geneva Convention were called "sacred cows" in need of reform, with calls to renationalize asylum and migration policy to restore national control. Speakers contrasted thriving, cohesive Polish cities with decaying Western European examples overwhelmed by crime and social breakdown.

Despite institutional resistance, conservative and sovereignist forces have scored tangible victories. The European Parliament backed major updates to the Returns Regulation, a breakthrough expanding deportation powers, mutual recognition of orders across member states, longer detention periods, extended entry bans, and possibilities for return hubs outside EU territory.

Weimers described stricter return rules as one of the Sweden Democrats' biggest negotiating successes, declaring "the era of deportations has begun."

Italian PM Giorgia Meloni welcomed the changes as validation of her government's approach. Other leaders from the right celebrated the shift toward enforcement and national sovereignty over Brussels dictates.

Leftist reactions included chants of "shame" met with counter-chants of "send them back," followed by complaints about conservatives celebrating the win with a rooftop gathering - moments of dark comedy amid the stakes.

These advances prove that persistent advocacy can shift policy, even if implementation lags and globalist pushback - from the UN and others - continues. Yet incidents like Zedig's murder demonstrate why speed matters. Return rates remain abysmal under old rules, allowing repeat offenders and unintegrated migrants to remain threats.

Zedig's death is tragically familiar. From stabbings to grooming scandals, rioting, and everyday street violence, the data on overrepresentation in crime statistics across Western Europe is inescapable for those willing to examine it. Fan zones, once symbols of shared celebration, now risk becoming flashpoints due to imported rivalries and lack of respect for host societies.

Weimers' Rule 164 initiative forces the Parliament to address implications head-on: rising insecurity, strained police resources, cultural fragmentation, and the demographic trajectory that amplifies risks. Ignoring it invites more tragedy and deeper societal division.

Europe stands at a crossroads. Decades of elite-driven mass immigration without regard for compatibility, numbers, or enforcement have produced predictable results: overburdened welfare systems, no-go areas, terror threats, and innocent victims. Families torn apart, communities on edge, and taxpayers funding the consequences.

The successes on remigration tools offer hope, but only if national governments wield them aggressively. Weimers and allies are dragging the conversation toward reality - prioritizing citizens' safety, cultural cohesion, and sovereignty. The votes against even debating the matter reveals who still clings to denial.

As the Parliament convenes, the message is clear: enough is enough. Europeans deserve leaders who secure borders, enforce returns, and put their own people first. The era of looking the other way must end.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 03:30

Rutte Touts 'Literally Billions' Invested To Drastically Ramp Up NATO's Drone Capabilities

NATO leadership has this week made clear where it plans to invest a bulk of defense and tech-related funds in the coming years, while making express reference to lessons learned from the Russia-Ukraine battlefield.

The alliance's Secretary General Mark Rutte said Tuesday that drone warfare is the next great expanse in NATO capabilities. He touted that member states are unveiling "major new projects" worth "literally billions of dollars" at the Ankara summit. "These are billions that are invested in our security, boosting our economies and supporting hundreds of thousands of new jobs," Rutte stated. "It’s money well spent."

Anadolu Agency

He unveiled that among the projects include the NATO future procurement of five "high-end, high-altitude and long-endurance uncrewed aircraft" from Northrop Grumman.

Defense News reviews:

Built by Northrop Grumman, the MQ-4C Triton is a high-altitude, long-endurance UAV specifically designed for maritime surveillance over vast stretches of sea.

According to Rutte, the aircraft will help NATO detect threats early, protect sea lines of communication, and support operations in demanding regions, such as the High North. "These aircraft can fly for long periods at high altitude and cover large areas, including over open water, more efficiently than most other aircraft can," he said at the event, organized to coincide with the NATO summit this week.

Rutte stressed that intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) is a vital capability for the alliance, as it provides the situational awareness needed to make the right decisions and stay ahead of threats. "Today, allies are taking a concrete step to strengthen this capability," he added.

An additional project area outlined by Rutte involves 40 billion dollars' worth of investment in "counter-drone capabilities over the next five years," the alliance additionally said in a statement.

Another drone-focused initiative is a goal for allies to "train five times as many drone operators by the end of 2027." This is where the Ukraine experience seems to have deeply informed NATO doctrine and direction. 

"Drones have fundamentally altered the character of modern warfare and become a decisive factor on the battlefield," the alliance said in its statement. "These initiatives will be essential to increase both Alliance readiness and resilience."

Western backers of the Zelensky government have of late been hailing the effectiveness of Ukraine forces' long-range drone strikes, which have often devastated major Russian refineries and energy infrastructure.

NATO's Rutte in Ankara:

We will launch a counter-drone marketplace.

The aim is to help procure counter-drone capabilities at scale and speed. pic.twitter.com/F6hfHkox6L

— Clash Report (@clashreport) July 7, 2026

At the same time NATO officials are seeking to make a positive impression on President Trump, after he's long demanded the alliance collectively raise the bar much higher on defense investment and spending. All of this could kick the can further in terms of needless escalation with Russia - especially the ongoing support to Ukraine's long-range drones and missiles, which are being sent deeper and deeper into Russian territory.

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 02:45

What Future Awaits Ukrainian Military-Aged Male Refugees In The EU?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Recent moves at the European and national levels bode ill for them...

The European Commission proposed to exclude new military-aged Ukrainian men from the bloc’s special refugee protection scheme per Ukraine’s request to help replenish its lost forces. For background, new Ukrainian Defense Minister Mikhail Fedorov shockingly revealed in January that 200,000 men have already deserted thus far and ten times more (2 million) are actively dodging the draft. Moreover, adult men comprise 26% of the 4.3 million Ukrainians in the EU for another one million potential conscripts.

The forcible conscription policy known as “busification”, which refers to capturing military-aged men off the street and throwing them into minibuses that then take them straight to local training centers and finally the frontlines, is wildly unpopular and increasingly being resisted by the population. It’s therefore much easier for the EU to deport ineligible military-aged men that flee to the bloc going forward, but the ideal solution from Ukraine’s perspective is for all those that are already there to be deported as well.

Denmark is planning to do precisely that. According to RT, “The Danish authorities want to amend a special law passed in 2022 to make Ukrainian men aged 23 to 60 ineligible for temporary residence permits unless they have been granted an exemption from military service. Ukrainian men under 23 would only be granted residence permits until they reach draft age.” Less than 50,000 Ukrainians have residence permits under this law, and maybe one-quarter are adult males, but it would still be symbolic.

Other countries could potentially follow Denmark’s lead on the basis that they too, as explained by the Danish Immigration Minister, “never intended for our residence rules to be used to avoid mobilization into the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Doing so undermines Ukraine’s war effort and weakens the country’s ability to defend itself against Russian attacks.” Amidst the spiraling Polish-Ukrainian dispute over Zelensky’s state glorification of the Volhynia Genocide’s OUN-UPA culprits, all eyes are on Warsaw.

The ruling liberal coalition, like the conservative government that it replaced in late 2023, appears to be in favor of retaining special privileges for adult Ukrainian males for alleged economic reasons. Be that as it may, the conservatives have recently soured on Ukraine and its refugees, nowadays signaling that they might be open to deporting some of them. While that would help Ukraine against Russia like Poland has always sought to do, it would also be doing Zelensky’s bidding, so they might reconsider their support.

Likewise, the Ukrainophilic liberal coalition might sacrifice the alleged economic benefits that Poland receives from adult Ukrainian male refugees by deporting them, albeit with the purpose of pleasing Zelensky and perhaps as an “olive branch” amidst the conservative president’s feud with him. It’s too early to tell what this group’s future in Poland might be, but the scenario of at least some of them being deported can’t be ruled out, which could help the liberals ahead of fall 2027’s next Sejm elections.

As Ukraine continues to lose ground along the front, which the dramatic visuals from its recent spree of strikes against Russia is aimed in part at distracting the global public from, Kiev is expected to ramp up its pressure campaign against the EU – and particularly Poland – to obtain more meat for the grinder.

Trump’s plans of “escalating to de-escalate” with Russia through an intense “war of attrition” require the replenishment of Ukraine’s forces, so if “busification” doesn’t suffice, then this is the only fallback plan.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 02:00