Trump Moves To Rescind Appliance Efficiency Standards
President Donald Trump on May 9 moved to rescind appliance energy efficiency standards, calling them “unnecessary radical green agenda policies.”
In a memo to the secretary of the Department of Energy, Trump said, “Water conservation requirements for faucets, showers, bathtubs, and toilets … make bathroom appliances more expensive and less functional.”
“‘Efficiency’ standards render other American appliances like clothes washers and dishwashers less useful, more breakable, and more expensive to repair,” the White House said in a fact sheet on Trump’s memo. “The Federal Government should not impose or enforce regulations that make taxpayers’ lives worse.”
As Joseph Lord reports for The Epoch Times, the memo orders Energy Secretary Chris Wright to review and rescind rules limiting water use in showerheads, faucets, dishwashers, toilets, urinals, and washing machines, or return these rules to the bare minimum required by the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
The executive order will have a major effect on the Energy Star program, which is managed by the EPA in coordination with the Department of Energy. Under the program, the EPA establishes energy efficiency guidelines, and appliances in a given category that meet these specifications can display the ENERGY STAR logo.
Trump said that his directive would help increase the effectiveness of bathroom products, saying that standards imposed in the aftermath of the 1992 legislation had reduced consumer choice and made products less functional than they were before the legislation.
“Ultra-efficient washing machines cost at least $100 more according to the Department of Energy,” the White House fact sheet states. “Updated dishwasher regulations caused those appliances to take two hours or more to complete a normal load of dishes—about twice the time of pre-standards models.”
Earlier, on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order to “safeguard the American people’s freedom to choose from a variety of goods and appliances, including but not limited to lightbulbs, dishwashers, washing machines, gas stoves, water heaters, toilets, and shower heads.”
The same day, Trump signed several measures passed by Congress under the Congressional Review Act repealing rules from President Joe Biden’s administration related to energy efficiency.
The measures repealed regulations on gas water heaters and walk-in coolers and freezers, as well as energy conservation standards for some appliances and some consumer products and commercial freezers.
“It’s all about common sense,” Trump said as he signed the legislation while flanked by Republican lawmakers.
The rescission comes amid an ongoing reorganization of the EPA under Director Lee Zeldin.
In a video, Zeldin said that before the Trump administration, the regulatory agency was spending $63 billion “including all sorts of political green slush funds”—although it cost only about $8 billion to $10 billion to run the agency.
“This reorganization will bring much needed efficiencies to incorporate science into our rulemakings and sharply focus our work on providing the cleanest air, land, and water for our communities. It will also save at least $300 million annually for the American people,” Zeldin said.
Such an exclusive focus on air, land, and water cleanliness is a departure from the focus on climate change that has defined the agency in the past, and fits into Trump’s larger commitment to reducing regulations that the president has said harm American energy production and use.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) on Monday announced its decision to disband and end its armed struggle, following a call in February by its imprisoned leader Abdullah Ocalan.
The Kurdish armed group, which has waged a war against Turkey since the 1980s, said that it had completed its “historic mission” and brought the Kurdish question to a point where it could be resolved through democratic politics.
The group said Ocalan should be allowed to manage the disbandment process. It also requested solid and integrated legal guarantees to ensure the success of their decision.
“At this stage, it is important for the Grand National Assembly of Turkey to play its role with historical responsibility,” the PKK’s statement said.
“Similarly, we call on all political parties represented in the parliament, especially the government and the main opposition party, and civil society organizations to take responsibility and participate in the peace and democratic society process.”
This historic announcement came after a 40-year-long conflict between Turkey and the PKK. The group initially sought Kurdish independence but later shifted its goal to autonomy and greater rights for Kurds within Turkey.
Over the decades, various governments, including that of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, attempted to resolve the issue through legal settlements, but these efforts were unsuccessful, and tens of thousands of lives were lost.
Since 2016, Ankara has managed to corner the PKK in northern Iraq by employing sophisticated technology such as drones and signal intelligence capabilities, as well as establishing dozens of military outposts that restrict the group’s freedom of movement and infiltration across the border.
A source familiar with the matter told Middle East Eye that the PKK’s announcement was initially set to be released on Friday, as the government had made some preparations, but internal PKK bureaucracy delayed its release.
Ocalan, 76, stated in his February address that the armed struggle was a product of a bygone era and that Kurds must seek their rights by participating in democratic societies within nation states.
Following his call, the Syrian Democratic Forces, a US-armed group led by PKK offshoots in Syria, then strucka deal with the new Damascus government, promising to return control of state institutions to the central administration.
Ocalan’s call came after Turkish nationalist leader and key Erdogan ally, Devlet Bahceli, asked the PKK leader last year to disband his group, potentially in return for being released into house arrest.
Talks with Kurdish DEM party
Since then, Bahceli has promised greater democratization in Turkey through phone conversations with the pro-Kurdish DEM Party. The government’s talks with Kurdish opposition groups have also divided the country’s opposition, as they come when popular Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu has been jailed and anti-Erdogan protests have been cracked down on.
“Long live the brotherhood of the Turkish and Kurdish peoples and a fully independent Turkey!”
Not once a “Long live Kurds” or “Long live Kurdistan.”
Ankara insiders now expect the PKK and Turkish intelligence to announce specifics on how the group will return its arms and formally disband. Turkish officials, speaking on condition of anonymity earlier this year, told MEE that legal studies were underway to allow PKK members who have not participated in armed attacks to be welcomed back to the country.
Some officials speculate that the PKK leadership will either remain in northern Iraq, potentially in Sulaymaniyah, or be allowed to relocate to Europe in exile.
The DEM Party also expects the government to release thousands of its members imprisoned on non-violent charges and to end the practice of unseating its popularly elected mayors. A key demand is the release of Selahattin Demirtas, a Kurdish-Turkish politician who has been incarcerated since 2016.
Mexico Sues Google Over ‘Gulf of America’ Label As Sheinbaum Pushes Back On Trump Renaming Order
The Mexican government has filed a legal complaint against Google after the tech giant adopted U.S. government terminology labeling the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” on its Maps platform for users inside the United States.
President Claudia Sheinbaum announced the lawsuit this week, denouncing the renaming as an overreach of U.S. territorial claims and a disregard for Mexico’s sovereignty over its own coastal waters.
“Google is already being sued. There has already been a first resolution, and it is awaited,” Sheinbaum said at a press conference. “What we are saying is that Google should put Gulf of America where it is Gulf of America, which is the part that corresponds to the territory of the United States, and put Gulf of Mexico to the territorial part that corresponds to Mexico and Cuba.”
The dispute stems from a directive issued by President Donald Trump shortly after taking office in which he renamed the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” Trump characterized the change as a tribute to “American greatness,” despite the gulf’s original name having been in continuous use since the 16th century.
While the order carries no international legal weight, Google has complied with the U.S. government’s naming directive within its American-facing services, citing longstanding internal policy to follow official U.S. geographic naming standards via the federal Geographic Names Information System (GNIS).
Mexico’s Foreign Ministry had previously issued letters to Google urging the company not to apply the new name to Mexican territorial waters. Those appeals were unsuccessful, prompting the current legal action.
Though symbolic in nature, the case reflects growing tensions between Sheinbaum’s administration and Washington, particularly over questions of cultural identity, regional sovereignty, and the influence of American tech companies abroad.
The name change has also sparked political controversy in the U.S. In February, the White House barred the Associated Press from the press pool for continuing to refer to the waterway as the Gulf of Mexico, accusing the news agency of “defying official nomenclature.”
President Trump had advocated for the new name since before taking office, after Sheinbaum – then Mexico City’s mayor – jokingly proposed rebranding North America as “Mexican America,” referencing a phrase in an early draft of Mexico’s constitution. That quip reportedly prompted Trump’s advisers to push the Gulf renaming as a direct rebuke.
While Trump’s executive order applies only to U.S. federal agencies and does not require recognition by other countries or international bodies, Mexico’s legal complaint could set a precedent in challenging the global reach of U.S. policies via digital platforms.
A spokesperson for Google declined to comment on the pending litigation but reiterated the company’s policy of aligning map labels with official government data in each region.
The proposed bill allocates $1.321 billion to refill the SPR and $218 million for maintenance and repairs.
It aims to repeal the SPR drawdown mandate and redirect funds away from climate initiatives.
The legislation responds to Trump’s promise to refill the reserve and criticizes Biden’s SPR releases.
U.S. House Republicans have introduced the Budget Reconciliation Bill, which will include funding to begin refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR)—a key promise of President Donald Trump.
The bill proposes $1.321 billion to acquire, by purchase, petroleum products for storage in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and another $218 million for maintenance of, including repairs to, storage facilities and related facilities.
The bill also repeals the SPR drawdown and sale mandate.
“The bill would also begin refilling the dangerously low Strategic Petroleum Reserve,” Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, wrote in an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal on Sunday.
Republican Congressman Guthrie also noted that “This bill would claw back money headed for green boondoggles through “environmental and climate justice block grants” and other spending mechanisms through the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department.”
The legislation would “reverse the most reckless parts of the engorged climate spending in the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, returning $6.5 billion in unspent funds,” Guthrie added.
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump said the U.S. Administration would quickly fill up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
“They put it all out because they thought they could keep gasoline prices down a little bit, just go past the election, and after that, they didn’t care,” the President added, criticizing Joe Biden’s administration for failing to curb the hikes in gasoline prices.
The SPR needs to be refilled as the strategic reserve plays a critical role in stabilizing the U.S. market during global supply disruptions.
The Biden administration released more than 180 million barrels of oil from the SPR starting in 2021, amid high gasoline prices.
The Department of the Treasury claims that these releases, along with coordinated international efforts, helped reduce gasoline prices by up to 40 cents per gallon in 2022.
Iran Rejects ‘Unacceptable’ US Demand To Dismantle Nuclear Sites
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has thrown cold water on the possibility of dismantling its nuclear facilities, which Tehran maintains are only for peaceful domestic energy purposes.
But top US officials have called for just that. Starting earlier this month Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Iran has to ‘walk away’ from uranium enrichment and long-range missile development, while Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff just days ago went further, asserting that Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities “have to be dismantled” for Washington to trust that it does not want nuclear arms.
Pezeshkian in the fresh comments blasted the demand as “unacceptable” and framed it as a matter of national sovereignty and independent development.
“The discussion that has been raised about dismantling Iran’s entire nuclear facilities is unacceptable to us,” the Iranian president said, adding that “Iran will not give up its peaceful nuclear rights.“
Still, the country’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi acknowledged Sunday that negotiations with the United States in Oman had become “much more serious and frank” – which suggests positive momentum toward restoring a deal or at least an understanding on which to build a working relationship with Washington.
Araqchi in the comments given to Iran’s state-run IRIB TV characterized “forward-moving” talks with the US over an array of complex nuclear-related issues.
This is despite last Thursday’s provocative comments given to Breitbart wherein bluntly stated, “They cannot have centrifuges. They have to downblend all of their fuel that they have there and send it to a far-away place.”
“An enrichment program can never exist in the state of Iran ever again. That’s our red line,” the US envoy asserted further.
“I just believe they have no choice” but to accept the White House position against enrichment, continued Witkoff. “Obviously, they can say no, and they can test President Trump, but I think that would be an unwise thing to do.”
Iranian leadership has tended to brush off such maximalist demands, hoping instead that they can appeal to President Trump’s pragmatic deal-making side and willingness to avoid war at all costs. Israel has long threatened preemptive attack on Iran if it believes Tehran is on the cusp of achieving a nuke. Trump has clearly distanced himself from these Israeli efforts to box him into a corner towards starting a new Middle East conflict.
President Pezeshkian meanwhile has continued stressing the “peaceful” purposes of the country’s nuclear sites, which include the areas of radiopharmaceuticals, healthcare, agriculture, and industry.
Despite wielding the most advanced surveillance systems in the world Fox News would have you believe that the US JUST discovered a new Nuclear facility in Iran producing weapons-grade material. How very WMD of you. pic.twitter.com/tt7jLfPpQC
“We are serious in the negotiations and seek an agreement. We hold talks because we want peace,” he said. Iranian officials have of late complained that it’s very hard to deal with the United States, given rotating administrations which have the capability to reverse key decisions of prior presidents.
Such was the case with the Obama-brokered JCPOA nuclear deal, which Trump unilaterally pulled out of in April 2018. It’s as yet unclear the degree to which that original deal’s terms will be restored or held to as part of the new ongoing talks.
By Benjamin Picton, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank
“May you live in interesting times” is a phrase sometimes erroneously attributed as an ancient Chinese curse. The general idea being that “interesting” times are more likely to be tumultuous and hard, rather than easy and comfortable. Given that we now live in a time where established orthodoxies like “free trade is always and everywhere a good thing”, ‘the international rules-based order’ and “there will never be an American Pope” are being overturned, its fair to say that the current climate meets the standard for “interesting”.
The big market-related news this morning is the trade talks between China and the United States in Geneva over the weekend. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the talks resulted in “substantial progress”, while Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng also extolled “important progress” without offering specifics. President Trump went so far as to call the talks a “total reset” on the US-China relationship, but if that’s the case the risk-on tone in markets this morning seems underdone. Perhaps this is one of those occasions where traders’ reticence to price in “he means what he says” actually works because deep divergence of interests means that there is unlikely to be any substantive meat on these bones? Risk assets are minorly bid this morning and Bessent says an announcement of particulars will be made later today.
Meanwhile, President Xi Jinping travelled to Moscow last week to attend Russia’s Victory Day parade, marking 80-years since the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. At the event Xi described the relationship between Russia and China as “unbreakable” and said that they were ”friends of steel”, which might be a little awkward for the European trade boffins who see closer ties with China as a card that they can play in negotiations with the United States. Is the friend of my enemy my enemy? Or can we still be friends while I pretend that he doesn’t pal around with unsavoury characters that are fighting wars of aggression against my other, smaller friends? It’s hard to see how Europe could lay claim to usurping the USA as the new torchbearer of freedom and democracy (as some have claimed it has done) while pursuing such naked self-interest on the trade front.
Of course, others are happy to drop the pretext that they are pursuing anything other than naked self-interest. President Zelenskyy, backed by European counterparts, had offered a 30-day ceasefire in the war against Russia, but was rebuffed by Moscow who countered by offering direct talks to be hosted in Istanbul later this week. Zelenskyy, increasingly pressured by the US to cut a deal to end hostilities, says that he is ready to talk but it is unclear whether he will be meeting with Vladimir Putin in person. What IS clear is the likely terms offered by Russia for peace: no NATO membership for Ukraine, recognition of Russian dominion over Crimea, no international peacekeepers on Ukrainian territory, recognition of Russian control over territory in Eastern Ukraine and strict caps on Western military aid to Ukraine. All of that sounds a bit ‘Treaty of Versailles’, but the realpolitik here is clear: Russia is nakedly pursuing its vital strategic interests and the ‘international rules-based order’ really doesn’t feature.
Elsewhere in geopolitics, India tweaked the US’ nose for suggesting that it had brokered the tenuous ceasefire that is currently holding vis-à-vis Pakistan, and PM Modi reportedly told J.D. Vance that any further attacks from Pakistan will be met with “devastating and strong” retaliation from New Delhi. A number of news outlets have noted in recent days that the tit-for-tat exchanges between the two South Asian neighbours has provided an interesting sandbox for testing Chinese military hardware (as deployed by Pakistan) against Western weaponry increasingly adopted by India. No doubt there will be many interested onlookers should hostilities flare up again, as seems likely.
President Trump will travel to Riyadh today to meet with Saudi Arabian officials. Saudi reportedly wants to do a deal to access civilian nuclear technology, and has told the US that if they are unwilling to supply it they may look elsewhere (read, China). Meanwhile, the relationship between the United States and Israel seems to be deteriorating as the USA tries to do a deal with Iran over its own nuclear ambitions (a red line for Israel), calls time-out on strikes against the Houthis, and flirts with the prospect of recognizing a Palestinian state. Israeli PM Netanyahu is digging his heels in over extending the war in Gaza (much to the frustration of the USA) and comments attributed to Netanyahu suggesting that Israel may need to “detox” itself from US security assistance are currently spreading across social media. The trend in developments here seems to suggested that odds of diplomatic normalization between Saudi Arabia an Israel are lengthening, which is a win for Iran and another L for Western-liberal multilateralism.
So, the world remains in a geopolitical flux as the architecture hammered out at Bretton Woods appears to be breathing its last and Great States vie to shape the emerging global order. Markets are still ticking along though, with gold down, oil up, the DXY index back above 100, yields on US 10’s rising again and stocks opening up bid.
We may live in interesting times, but in the markets it’s all very ho-hum.
A federal judge has denied an emergency bid by Dr. Terry Adirim to halt her dismissal from the CIA, rejecting her claims that political activists orchestrated her firing in retaliation for her role in enforcing the military’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
In a ruling issued on May 9, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff found that Adirim had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim that the CIA violated her constitutional rights. The decision clears the way for the agency to proceed with terminating Adirim’s employment under a contract provision allowing dismissal with 30 days’ notice.
Adirim, a former senior Defense Department official who served as the CIA’s director of global health services, alleged in court filings that she became the target of a politically motivated campaign led by activist Ivan Raiklin. She claimed in her lawsuit that Raiklin defamed her as a traitor and “architect” of the Pentagon’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate and that he enlisted fellow activist Laura Loomer to persuade President Donald Trump to intervene with the CIA to have her fired.
Her lawsuit named the CIA, Raiklin, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and the conservative nonprofit America’s Future as defendants. It alleged due process violations, defamation, breach of contract, and a Privacy Act violation stemming from alleged leaks about her dismissal to Breitbart News.
In a 25-page opposition brief filed on May 6, Justice Department attorneys called Adirim’s theory “speculative and unsupported,” arguing that her theory relied on loosely drawn connections and unsubstantiated assumptions about political influence.
“Plaintiff pinpoints the blame not on the CIA, but on a non-governmental actor, Ivan Raiklin, whom she accuses of orchestrating her termination through a scheme of defamation and political influence,” the attorneys wrote. “Besides being farfetched—and untrue—Plaintiff’s allegations do not actually amount to any viable claim against the Federal Defendants, let alone any claim that merits an injunction.”
The Department of Justice acknowledged Adirim’s name appeared on Raiklin’s so-called Deep State Target List but said this had no bearing on the CIA’s decision.
“There is no reason other than the close timing of Ms. Loomer’s White House visit and the CIA’s communication of its termination decision to Plaintiff to suggest the two are linked,” the filing reads.
The CIA maintained that Adirim wasn’t terminated over politics but because of “multiple complaints” from CIA staff about her “inappropriate and harassing” conduct in the workplace.
According to a declaration from the agency’s deputy chief operating officer, senior leadership initiated a review of Adirim’s behavior weeks before Loomer’s reported White House visit and made the decision to terminate her independently.
The political and legal controversy surrounding the military’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate intensified just days before the court’s ruling. On May 7, the Pentagon issued sweeping new guidance acknowledging that the mandate had been “an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden” on servicemembers. The memo directed military review boards to reinstate troops discharged over the mandate and remove related disciplinary records, declaring that the lack of due process in enforcing vaccine compliance was itself “an injustice.”
Adirim, who had signed key policy documents enabling the Pentagon’s mandate while serving as acting assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, became a focal point in that broader political reckoning—even as the CIA maintained her dismissal was unrelated.
In her complaint, Adirim contended that being fired just weeks before qualifying for federal retirement amounted to irreparable harm, that she had been defamed after decades of public service, and that her family had been endangered.
The CIA said the decision was internal, lawful, and based on employee complaints rather than political pressure.
In response to the May 9 ruling, Adirim’s attorney Kevin Carroll told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement, “We respect the court’s decision and look forward to litigating the underlying issues.”
The case remains active in federal court but, without the injunction she had sought, Adirim’s termination is now set to proceed as planned.
Raiklin, in a post on social media platform X, hailed the decision: “Terry Adirim, you’re fired!!! Your lawyer is next.”
Pope Leo XIV called for a ceasefire in Gaza and an end to the Israeli blockade of aid on Sunday in his first Sunday blessing since being elected pontiff last week.
“I am deeply pained by what is happening [in Gaza],” Leo said from the loggia of St. Peter’s Basilica. “Let the fighting cease immediately, let humanitarian aid be provided to the exhausted civilian population, and may all hostages be released.”
The pope also called for a ceasefire in Ukraine, saying, “I carry in my heart the sufferings of the beloved Ukrainian people. Let everything possible be done to achieve genuine, just and lasting peace as soon as possible.”
Leo, the first US-born pontiff, welcomed the ceasefire between India and Pakistan and made an appeal to world leaders for peace and an end to war. “In today’s dramatic context of a third world war fought piecemeal … I too appeal to the powerful of the world by repeating these ever-relevant words: ‘never again war!‘” he said.
The pope made the remarks after singing the Regina Caeli (Queen of Heaven) prayer, which is traditionally recited throughout the Easter season. He closed his address with a “heartfelt appeal” to Mary Queen of Peace, “so that she may present it to the Lord Jesus and obtain for us the miracle of peace.”
Leo’s comments signal he will continue the late Pope Francis’s emphasis on the issues of war and peace. Francis frequently called for peace in Gaza and was highly critical of Israel’s conduct, suggesting in his last book that there should be an investigation into whether it constitutes genocide.
Francis also kept in close contact with the Holy Family Catholic Church in Gaza City, often holding nightly calls with the priest and parishioners. His final call with the church occurred on April 19, just two days before his death.
Francis called for a ceasefire in Gaza in his last public address, which was delivered by an aide the day before his death. “I think of the people of Gaza, and its Christian community in particular, where the terrible conflict continues to cause death and destruction and to create a dramatic and deplorable humanitarian situation,” he said.
The newly elected Pope is already getting busy with matters of world diplomacy and peace…
“I appeal to the warring parties: call a ceasefire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspires to a future of peace!” he had added.
Apple May Hike iPhone Prices For First Time Since 2017
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 lineup on September 9, with pre-orders likely to open later that week—consistent with the company’s usual early-September launch cycle. However, this year’s release may come with a notable deviation from the norm: according to The Wall Street Journal, Apple is considering its first iPhone price increase since the debut of the iPhone X in 2017.
Sources familiar with the upcoming iPhone lineup told WSJ that CEO Tim Cook is expected to steer clear of linking any potential price increases to the ongoing U.S.-China tariff dispute. While most of Apple’s devices are still manufactured in China, the company has steadily shifted iPhone production to India to mitigate tariffs and potential supply chain snarls.
Positive news emerged earlier, with the US and China agreeing to limit tariffs, including reducing levies on Chinese goods entering the US from 145% to 30%. This 90-day cool-off period will allow both economic superpowers to move forward and attempt to strike a resolution to end or at least continue de-escalating the trade war.
The people said Apple’s most profitable, high-end phones, such as the Pro and Pro Max models, will still be produced in China. They pointed out that Indian production lines are still incapable of mass-producing Pro models.
Jefferies estimates that approximately 65 million iPhones were sold in the US market last year, 36 to 39 million of which were Pro or Pro Max models.
Apple hasn’t raised iPhone pricing since the X debuted in 2017, keeping prices at a $999 ceiling. The sources did not indicate future pricing for the models.
These circumstances have led Apple to look at what supply-chain insiders described as the least-bad choice: raising prices on the new iPhones to preserve profit and finding reasons other than tariffs to explain the move. It couldn’t be determined what new features Apple may offer to help justify price increases.
Apple traditionally rolls out new models of its iPhones in the fall. If it follows convention, this fall’s models will be known as the iPhone 17 lineup. Current iPhone models range from the base model iPhone 16, which starts at $799, to the iPhone 16 Pro Max, which costs $1,199 and up.
It’s clear that Apple can’t put a premium on Apple Intelligence because it has so far been a bust…
In Trump’s first term, Tim Cook lobbied the administration to exempt some of its devices from tariffs. Before the trade war broke out earlier this year, Cook visited the White House.
“By the end of 2026 or the beginning of 2027, we are optimistic that India will be capable of meeting both the U.S. and India’s demand, but China will still be important” for sourcing components, Abhilash Kumar, an analyst with tech research firm TechInsights, said, quoted by WSJ.
Jefferies analysts cautioned that increasing production of high-end iPhone models in India to around 40 million within two years was a “tall order.”
A previous WSJ report cited sources who said Apple has been studying various ways to shift overseas iPhone production to the US—a move that could take years.
Wedbush Securities suggested that an American iPhone could cost $3,500.
The Colorado state legislature is considering a bill that would radically chill parents’ speech. Dubbed the “Kelly Loving Act,” the bill, if signed into law, would empower judges to consider “deadnaming” and “misgendering” your child to be types of “coercive control” when they’re making custody decisions. In simple terms: if your child gender transitions and you don’t affirm their new gender identity, then a judge could consider your non-affirmation to be a form of abuse and use it as justification to deny you custody of your child.
This is a deeply chilling bill. The bill’s sponsors frame it as a way to show support for transgender people, but this bill goes way too far in stripping away parents’ rights.
Being a good and loving parent means telling your child “no.” Every parent has had these conversations.
“No, you can’t have M&Ms for dinner; eat your broccoli.”
“No, you can’t stay up until midnight. Your bedtime is ten.”
“No, you can’t hang out with Chad who’s always high; find some friends who will have a better influence on you.”
But when it comes to gender transitioning, saying “no” could be dangerous. If your son decides to socially transition and begins calling himself a girl, and you don’t unconditionally affirm that decision, then you could risk losing him if you’re ever in a child custody battle.
Some advocates of gender transitioning say that socially transitioning is harmless. After all, what does it matter if your son starts to use female pronouns and wear dresses? The problem is that socially transitioning puts many children on a conveyor belt to medically transitioning. According to a 2022 study on the topic, a stunning 97.5 percent of young people who socially transitioned continued to identify as either trans or nonbinary several years later. Nearly 60 percent went on to medically transition via either puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones.
Proponents of gender-affirming care for young people suggest that these numbers are proof that young people know their gender identity and simply need it to be affirmed; when it is affirmed, they do not waver. But this idea falls apart when we consider that the mean child in the study socially transitioned when they were just six years old. It is possible that some of these children truly are transgender. Much more likely is that, when a slew of authority figures validate a young child’s sense of identity, these authority figures reify that sense of identity. This is true even if the identity in question is not something that the child would ever have chosen had they not been prodded into it by well-meaning authority figures.
The fragile and unsteady formation of a child’s sense of identity has long been studied by psychologists. If authority figures tell a child that he or she is worthless or defective, then many children will believe that even if it is not true. If authority figures tell a child that they are stupid, or bad at sports, or shouldn’t play piano, and if the authority figures hammer this message home for years from a young age, many children will grow to believe this about themselves.
Indeed, this helps explain the rapid rise of transgender-identifying youth. As professor of psychology Jean Twenge notes, the number of young people who identify as transgender has exploded in recent years.
Some of this explosion might have to do with the fact that people who identify as transgender feel safer coming out of the closet than they might have in previous decades. But the size of the surge suggests that a lot of this is socially mediated; that is, young people are being pressured by peers or by authority figures (including by the promise of unconditional acceptance) into adopting an identity that isn’t really theirs.
“the fact that gender dysphoria now often appears in social clusters (such as a group of close friends), the fact that parents and those who transition back to their natal sex identify social media as a major source of information and encouragement, and the fact that gender dysphoria is now being diagnosed among many adolescents who showed no signs of it as children all indicate that social influence and sociogenic transmission may be at work as well.”
For many young children who are being encouraged to socially transition, the best and most loving act that a parent can take may indeed be to push back on this false sense of identity rather than reify it. There are times when parents really do know best.
When it comes to free speech, a good rule of thumb is this: the more weighty a matter is, the more essential that we be allowed to discuss it freely. The higher the stakes to vulnerable lives if we make the wrong decision, the more essential it is that everyone should have the freedom to share their perspective.
The reason is simple: free speech is a powerful vehicle for discovering the truth of a matter, because it allows everyone involved to bring their perspective and their knowledge to bear on the question. When we don’t allow all parties to speak freely, we increase the risk of making bad decisions because the blind spots and cognitive biases of the people who are allowed to speak do not get confronted. As John Milton wrote in “Areopagitica,” “Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter?”
This bill threatens to chill speech on one of the most important questions that a parent will ever have to wrestle with. If a six-year-old boy wants to socially transition, then it is essential that his parents be free to discuss the matter frankly and honestly. They should bring up their concerns. Only when both parents are free to discuss these matters openly and honestly can they help the child to navigate this decision in a way that is most likely to be in the child’s long-term best interest.
If the Colorado bill were to become law, it would put a stop to those conversations. If a mother believes that affirming her six-year-old son’s decision to socially transition isn’t in his best interest, is she going to speak up about her concerns knowing that it could potentially cost her custody of her child? More likely, she’ll be tempted to keep her concerns and opinions to herself, in order to not take the risk. But that state-enforced silence won’t help her son.
It’s easy to see the noble intentions motivating the authors of the “Kelly Loving Act.” As one of the bill’s sponsors said, “This is a bill that will … send a message to trans people in Colorado that we believe in them, care for them, and love them, and we want them to live healthy, safe lives.” We should certainly all be respectful of adults who choose to transition their sex or gender, and to love and care for them as God’s cherished children.
It’s also essential that we care for young people struggling to find their identity in a tumultuous world. But we should remember that most parents know their children and love their children far better than a judge ever could. Perhaps the most caring thing we can do for young children right now is to empower parents to raise them as the parents see fit, without unnecessary and intrusive political oversight from state agents.
