news – iftttwall

Florida’s ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ To Permanently Close, Gov. DeSantis Says

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Florida permanently closed the temporary illegal immigrant holding center “Alligator Alcatraz” June 25 after transferring federal detainees to other facilities, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced.

“Alligator Alcatraz now has zero detainees,” DeSantis told reporters at a press conference outside the facility at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in the Florida Everglades, about 50 miles west of Miami.

“It has helped remove many, many dangerous people from the street and get them out not only the state of Florida but the United States of America,” DeSantis said.

The facility was completed in less than two weeks and led to the deportation of almost 21,000 illegal immigrants, mainly people who had criminal records or were wanted for crimes, DeSantis said.

Crimes committed by the foreign nationals who were deported from the facility included sexual battery, international cartel activity, drug trafficking, homicide, burglary, fraud, fentanyl distribution, and Medicaid fraud, according to records.

The 2026 hurricane season started June 1, prompting Florida officials to move detainees out of the soft-sided facility.

Florida will continue to cooperate with the Trump administration on its immigration program, DeSantis said.

The state’s Deportation Depot in Baker County has processed 10,000 illegal immigrants and will continue to operate, he said.

“We’re proud to be able to be in this fight,” DeSantis said.

Florida is the only state in America that requires all state agencies to cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies in Florida for immigration enforcement.

President Donald Trump (2nd L), Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (L), and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem (R) tour a detention center for illegal immigrants, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, located at the site of the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport in Ochopee, Fla., on July 1, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

As a result, Florida has accounted for 40 percent of all immigrant arrests during President Donald Trump’s second term, according to the governor.

U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan joined Florida officials at the closure of Alligator Alcatraz June 25, touting the state’s success in helping the administration achieve a “record number of arrests and deportations.”

“Targeting national security threats is a priority of President Trump and we’re achieving that,” Homan said. “This doesn’t end the relationship. This is a continuation.”

Homan reported the administration had reduced illegal immigration by 97 percent at the border and had recovered 147,000 out of the 300,000 immigrant children that went missing under President Joe Biden’s administration.

“We are saving thousands of lives by securing that border,” Homan said. “A secure border is the most humane thing you can do. This is what the American people voted for and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”

White House border czar Tom Homan takes a question from a reporter outside the West Wing of the White House on June 22, 2026. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Even before Alligator Alcatraz opened its doors, the site drew protests and lawsuits filed by immigrant rights groups.

In July 2025, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other groups filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the facility. The ACLU alleged that there was a lack of access to it and that detainees lacked due process.

State and federal officials have denied all allegations of torture and inhumane conditions at the detention facility.

The ACLU’s Florida chapter celebrated the governor’s announcement about the site’s permanent shutdown.

“Through pushback and litigation pressure, we the people successfully closed the chapter on this facility’s dark record,” the ACLU of Florida posted on X.

A protester stands outside the migrant detention facility dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” at the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Facility in Ochopee, Fla., on July 12, 2025. AP Photo/Alexandra Rodriguez

The Sierra Club of Florida welcomed the closure.

“We welcome efforts to permanently protect lands previously used for the prison camp known as ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’” the Sierra Club stated in an X post. “But fulfilling this commitment will require far more than the closure of the detention center alone.”

The Sierra Club is calling for the state to permanently protect the national preserve around the facility from future development, fossil fuel exploration, and drilling.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 13:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/gnFsTc5 Tyler Durden

Good Riddance to ‘Alligator Alcatraz,’ a Cruel, Expensive, and Pointless Authoritarian Stunt

Alligator Alcatraz | Illustration: Adani Samat. Photo: The White House/Envato

Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced at a press conference Thursday that the state’s “Alligator Alcatraz” detention camp is shutting down after less than a year in operation.

It’s a quiet end for a detention camp that the state of Florida opened last July with a splashy media rollout, including Alligator Alcatraz merchandise and tours by President Donald Trump and conservative social media influencers. But the hype faded as the camp, located on a remote airstrip in the middle of the Big Cypress National Preserve, racked up huge operating costs and numerous lawsuits—a sort of Fyre Festival of incipient authoritarianism.

Nevertheless, DeSantis said at Thursday’s press conference that the experiment “fulfilled the role it was designed to serve,” saying it held more than 20,000 detainees who were eventually deported.

“There’s no question this mission has made the state of Florida safer,” DeSantis said.

Even if one doesn’t question DeSantis’ premise, Florida taxpayers should question whether the end goal really required spending hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate a detention camp in the middle of a protected wetlands habitat, not to mention defend it in court from lawsuits—and then close it all down less than a year later.

And if the detention camp was such a success, Florida taxpayers might question why the DeSantis administration has done its best to hide the costs and day-to-day operations from the public. Contract details were scrubbed from state databases. Detainees disappeared from ICE’s online locator, leaving families and attorneys with no way to locate them. State and federal lawmakers were denied access to the camp. Attorneys had to sue for the right to secure phone and in-person visits with clients. While state and federal officials publicly estimated that the facility would cost $450 million a year to operate, Florida secretly requested a $1.49 billion grant from the Trump administration. Internal figures showed that the camp had an average “burn rate” of $1.2 million a day to hold 500 detainees. These figures were only revealed after environmental groups obtained a court order forcing the state to release financial estimates and other communications.

DeSantis’ premise does deserve questioning, though. To seize the property for the camp from Miami-Dade County, DeSantis relied on a 2023 state-of-emergency declaration claiming that “the migration of unauthorized aliens to the State of Florida is likely to constitute a major disaster.” The declaration was in response to waves of Cuban and Haitian migrants landing in the Florida Keys, but even after the landings mostly stopped, DeSantis continued to annually renew the state of emergency. That also allowed him to tap into a no-strings-attached disaster fund to hastily build the detention camp.

The Republican-controlled Florida Legislature had enough questions that, although it renewed the disaster emergency fund this year, it included a way for lawmakers to claw back misspent funds.

(One might also question whether, since the camp has been such a success, DeSantis will finally end Florida’s six-year-long state of emergency. The Florida Governor’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.)

And although federal and state officials claimed that the camp was holding violent gang members and hardened criminals, internal documents obtained by the Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times last year showed that hundreds of them didn’t have any underlying criminal records.

But whether the detention camp improved public safety or was cost-efficient is irrelevant to whether it comported with the Constitution, and civil liberties and immigrant aid groups say it was a human rights disaster. The camp was plagued with allegations of medical neglect, brutality, and lack of due process. Detainees were kept in metal cages underneath tents. Numerous first-hand reports described inadequate access to water, food, and showers, as well as overflowing toilets, miserable heat, and flooding during rainstorms.

One former Alligator Alcatraz detainee, Luis Miguel Rubiano, told Reason that although he was also held at an ICE field office, a county jail, and another DHS detention center, “Alligator Alcatraz was the worst place for [medical] treatment.”

“They didn’t have the tools,” Rubiano said. “They always told us to wait for the next day or something like that. They were supposed to take my blood pressure, but the machine was without batteries for like two days straight.”

This April, attorneys for Alligator Alcatraz detainees claimed in court filings that guards cut off phone access to detainees and then beat and pepper-sprayed detainees who complained. One attorney filed a declaration that included pictures of her client with a large, dark bruise surrounding one of his eyes.

Sens. Jon Ossoff (D–Ga.) and Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) sent a letter on March 25 to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin demanding information about multiple reports of detainees at the detention camp being put in a small, stifling hot box as punishment.

“There have been credible allegations that detainees at ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ have been punished with confinement in a small cage-like structure known as ‘the box,’ where they are held in stress positions with hands and feet tightly shackled for hours at a time, in direct sunlight with no access to food or water,” the senators wrote.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) apparently decided it’s had enough. Since former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was replaced by Mullin this spring, the department has been paring back its most ostentatious spending projects, and anonymously sourced reports began appearing last month indicating that Alligator Alcatraz could be on the chopping block.

Then suddenly last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that it was transferring all detainees out of the detention camp in preparation for Florida’s hurricane season, which runs from June through November.

Civil rights advocates and immigrant aid organizations did not believe the explanation, since the camp had opened last July during hurricane season and remained open throughout. Meanwhile, the head of Florida’s Division of Emergency Management, which operates the detention camp, said he didn’t know that ICE was removing the detainees until he read about it in the media.

DeSantis put Florida on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars for a cruel, expensive, and ultimately needless P.R. stunt. When DeSantis insists that Alligator Alcatraz was always meant to be a temporary facility, what he means is he hopes you’ll forget about it before too long.

There’s little likelihood of that. Civil rights groups and environmental advocates released a salvo of press releases Thursday vowing to continue litigating several ongoing lawsuits regarding the camp.

“This outrageously expensive internment camp inflicted documented harm on the Everglades, and Gov. DeSantis and Attorney General Uthmeier are trying to sweep it under the rug,” Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades, said in a press release. “We won’t allow it. The public deserves a full, transparent assessment of the extent of the damage at ‘Alligator Alcatraz.'”

The post Good Riddance to 'Alligator Alcatraz,' a Cruel, Expensive, and Pointless Authoritarian Stunt appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/YpItfeD
via IFTTT

Michigan Spent $1.8 Billion and Only Created 602 Jobs

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer against a backdrop of money | Illustration: Adani Samat. Photo: Mackinac Center For Public Policy/Envato

One of the great economic myths that never seems to die is the idea that giving taxpayer money to a private company will yield a windfall, incentivizing the company to create jobs and generate wealth that otherwise would not exist.

And yet time and time again, the benefits fall far short of what was promised, if they materialize at all. A new report suggests the state of Michigan is the latest to learn that lesson the hard way.

“Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer offered billions of taxpayer dollars to select companies in an effort to create jobs during her eight-year term,” writes James M. Hohman, director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. “Overall, she has authorized $6.9 billion for business subsidies since gaining office in 2019.”

In a new report, Hohman examined eight major projects—”those that offered $100 million in payments and received significant media attention”—totaling $2.7 billion in promised incentives. Hohman then assessed how the investments paid off.

Governments have a terrible track record of picking winners and losers, and it turns out that Michigan, under Whitmer, did not break the trend.

“None of these deals have delivered what was originally announced,” Hohman writes. “All told, the governor said that her major subsidy projects would create 20,595 jobs in Michigan. So far, these deals have created 602 jobs, just 3% of expectations. Of the $2.7 billion offered, $1.8 billion has been spent—transferred either to companies or to local economic development agencies.”

In four of the eight projects, the state gave money to one of the Big Three U.S. automakers—Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis (formerly Fiat Chrysler)—while in two others, it went to a company that made automobile components.

In one example, in May 2019, Whitmer announced “the largest automotive assembly plant deal in the country in the last decade.” As part of the deal, Fiat Chrysler would spend $4.5 billion in the state building a new plant and expanding five of its existing plants, creating 6,433 jobs, which Whitmer called a “generational investment in our state.” In return, state and local officials would contribute cash and incentives worth over $200 million.

The deal included $109 million just for the company to update its factories in Detroit and Warren. Specifically, it would build electric trucks at its Warren factory and create 1,400 jobs. But the Michigan Strategic Fund, the state’s economic development agency, noted in a 2021 report that this portion of the project was “dismissed with no agreement being executed,” as “it was determined the incentive was no longer necessary for the project to move forward.”

“The fact that the state canceled” it, noted Hohman, “suggests that special subsidies were not responsible for the jobs that may have been created.”

In fact, this was one of the better results, as officials simply retracted an offer before any money went out the door. But state taxpayers weren’t always so lucky.

In December 2021, Michigan lawmakers created the Strategic Outreach and Attraction Reserve (SOAR), an “economic development fund to ensure the state can compete for billions of dollars in investment and attract tens of thousands of jobs to bolster our economy.” In its first 18 months, the state distributed $1.4 billion, all of it to companies making electric vehicles, batteries, or battery components.

That included $210 million to Ford and $666 million to a joint venture between General Motors and LG Energy Solution, a Korean battery manufacturer. Each deal would produce an electric vehicle battery plant, with General Motors creating 4,000 jobs and Ford creating 2,500.

Neither deal panned out as intended. Of General Motors, Hohman writes, “Its lofty promises have been revised downward, and GM abandoned its stake in part of the deal.” That factory is now in the hands of LG Energy Solution, which will make residential and commercial batteries for Tesla.

Ford, meanwhile, lowered its job creation estimate from 2,500 to 1,700, though so far it has created zero, and received no state money, as the building is still under construction. The state did, however, spend another $780 million on site preparation.

Officials also negotiated for semiconductor manufacturer Sandisk to build a factory in Mundy Township, near Flint, creating 7,400 jobs. In exchange, the state agreed to $261 million in incentives, but lawmakers offered as much as $20 billion as part of the deal. That involved acquiring and clearing 1,300 acres of private land, including purchasing and demolishing homes and schools. Demolition began in March, even though Sandisk pulled out of the deal last year.

“The local developer has received about $200 million in state payments,” Hohman wrote. “The result is a big empty field.”

In total, Hohman found that $1.75 billion in state funds—out of $2.67 billion pledged—only created a measly 602 jobs at three of the eight projects, out of more than 25,000 promised. That means for each job Whitmer’s deals created, Michigan taxpayers have spent nearly $3 million.

As is often the case, Hohman found, government officials’ ambitious pledges of taxpayers’ money ran into the harsh reality of the free market. “People should not expect these projects to lead to economic growth, even if officials repeatedly say that they will. The state’s economic trends come from the decisions made by millions of people responding to their own opportunities and incentives,” he concluded. “The Whitmer administration’s track record shows that marquee economic development deals rarely work out as announced and that selective business subsidies fail to drive economic growth.”

The post Michigan Spent $1.8 Billion and Only Created 602 Jobs appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/NGi24Zj
via IFTTT

Polestar Barred From Selling Future EVs In US Under Connected-Vehicle Rule

The U.S. has become increasingly irrelevant to Polestar’s growth story.

The Geely-backed EV maker said Thursday that it is “increasing its strategic focus on Europe,” where much of its growth is now centered. The shift follows a decision by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security not to authorize Polestar to sell future model-year vehicles in the U.S. under connected-vehicle rules aimed at limiting Chinese-linked technologies on American highways.

“This follows a decision from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security to not grant Polestar an authorization under the current Connected Vehicle Rule to sell vehicles in the U.S. from model year 2027 onwards,” Polestar wrote in a statement.

Polestar said that 94% of its retail sales volume in the first quarter of 2026 came from ex-US markets, and that, following the US Commerce Department’s connected vehicle rule, it is now “increasing its strategic focus on Europe.”

According to the Q1 retail sales data, which totaled 13,126 cars, the 94% figure means that the EV company sold only 788 vehicles in the US, or about 6%. This compares with the 117,300 EVs Tesla sold in the US market in the same quarter.

Michael Lohscheller, Polestar CEO, said: “The automotive industry is entering a new phase, based on regional dynamics. Our strategy reflects that, with Europe being our largest growth engine and our plan to manufacture Polestar 7 in Europe.”

What Citi analyst Ross MacDonald says:

In May-26 Volvo Cars was granted specific authorizations for the continued import/sale of connected cars in the US (LINK), thus avoiding a costly US sales ban. Reuters is today reporting that Geely sub-brand Polestar has not received this favorable ruling, being denied authorization to sell vehicles model year 2027 cars in the US market. While this may at first be seen as an opportunity for Volvo Car to gain share in the premium US BEV segment, we actually see a small negative read-across to Volvo Car from this ruling. This reflects the fact – as shown below and discussed in our initiation (LINK, 25-June) – Volvo car actually share factory space with Polestar in several plants. The ruling could therefore drive some additional fixed cost absorption for Volvo Car across these plants if Polestar volumes decline rapidly and was likely not assumed in CMD targets, we would argue. Remains Sell.

What hat Bloomberg Intelligence Says…

“Polestar’s inability to sell US model-year 2027 vehicles under the connected-vehicle rule may put about $250 million of 2027 revenue at risk. Yet that equates to only about 5% of group sales. A Europe focus also appears strategically sensible because Polestar could redirect South Korea-built Polestar 4 vehicles from the US to Europe, avoiding EU tariffs on China- made EVs.”

Polestar American depositary receipts closed down 6% on Thursday following the news. Shares are down 11% on the year and have been locked in a vicious multi-year bear market:

Bloomberg noted, “Polestar 3s for the US market are assembled at Volvo’s plant in Charleston, South Carolina. A Volvo spokesperson said it was too early to speculate on any impact, adding that previously announced investments at the Charleston plant remain unchanged.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 12:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/EupDWnx Tyler Durden

Volkswagen CEO Plans 100,000 Job Cuts In Generational Overhaul

German business news outlet Manager Magazin reports that Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume is eyeing a major restructuring that could eliminate as many as 100,000 jobs. The latest VW earnings show just why: Europe’s largest automaker remains bloated in a world of weak demand, a softening Chinese market, rising Chinese competition in Europe, and low margins.

“Volkswagen CEO Oliver Blume is getting serious. He plans to drastically intensify job cuts, actually phase out production at four German plants, and spin off the VW brand into a new company. Volkswagen is to become a new company,” Manager Magazin wrote in the report.

If fully implemented, the 100,000-job reduction would eliminate about 15% of Volkswagen’s current global workforce of 650,000. Bloomberg data shows VW went on a hiring spree between 2008 and 2020.

Now, it appears a generational high has been reached in VW’s workforce, as a shift toward efficiency, automation, and AI could soon result in massive job losses. We’re sure lefty unions will be furious.

Manager Magazin also noted that Blume plans 11 billion euros in cost cuts by 2030, which could include spinning off component operations and the core VW brand.

The restructuring plan will be presented to the supervisory board next month and is expected to face intense resistance from labor unions and Lower Saxony lawmakers, who hold significant influence over the company’s governance.

The urgency behind a restructuring stems from deteriorating earnings: its first-quarter revenue fell 2.5% to 75.7 billion euros, while operating profit dropped 14.3% to 2.46 billion euros, and the operating margin slipped to 3.3% from 3.7%. Earnings after tax fell 28.4% to 1.56 billion euros, while vehicle sales fell 6.9%, and deliveries were down 4%.

A Volkswagen spokesperson told the Hamburg-based outlet that the struggling car company “must undergo profound change.” The executive board “has been working intensively over the past few months on a future-oriented plan to realign the company.”

Shares in Germany slipped 34 basis points following the report and remain down 25% on the year. The stock is trading at 2010 levels…

The implosion of VW tells you all you need to know about Europe’s crumbling industrial base at a time when war is still raging, and in fact accelerating, in Ukraine. Time to convert unused civilian vehicle production lines into interceptor missile production.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 12:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/nIYrQ0F Tyler Durden

New Jersey Supreme Court Requires Transparency for Facial Recognition Evidence

Facial recognition software | Adani Samat/Midjourney

Just like humans may err in recognizing faces, facial recognition technology (FRT) is not without its flaws. Multiple defendants have blamed the technology for wrongful arrests as more and more law enforcement agencies rely on the technology to identify suspects. Meanwhile, limits on its use vary from state to state and city to city.

A ruling this week regarding a murder case in New Jersey, however, forces law enforcement to disclose how this technology is used in criminal investigations in the state.

In State v. Tybear Miles, New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors must disclose how FRT was used to identify defendant Tybear Miles, who had been charged with “first-degree murder and weapons offenses.”

The case stems from a 2021 fatal shooting in Jersey City. A day after the shooting, officers showed a confidential informant, who did not witness the incident, CCTV footage from a nearby location. The informant identified two males by their street names and Instagram usernames, according to the ruling. After the informant identified one of the males as “Fat Daddy,” police ran a photo from “Fat Daddy’s” Instagram page through a facial recognition module, which identified Miles as a potential match.

The ruling notes that the state provided the defendant with two different FRT searches as part of discovery. One search, according to the ruling, “returned a list of ten possible ‘matches’ to the probe image of [the] defendant, with [the] defendant ranked as the eighth ‘match’ on the list of ten.” Another search “returned a list of ten possible ‘matches,’ with five different images of [the] defendant ranked in the first five positions.”

Miles’ sister and ex-girlfriend both identified Miles from videos and still images from other nearby surveillance footage, according to the ruling. The ruling states that “no witness identified defendant as the shooter; there were several people near the victim while he was shot twice; and all of the police interviewees were shown video footage and still photographs from approximately ninety minutes before the murder and seven minutes before the murder.”

Miles’ defense demanded details about how FRT was used in the case, and the trial judge ordered prosecutors to hand over 13 items, citing precedent from an earlier case requiring prosecutors to hand over FRT discovery items, reported the New Jersey Monitor.

In Wednesday’s ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court partially upheld the lower court order, reported Reuters. Justice Douglas Fasciale wrote that the state is required to produce “discovery identifying the FRT tools and materials the State used in its investigation,” including the name and manufacturer of the software and publicly available information about its error rates. The state must also turn over items such as the original photograph used in the probe as part of discovery. The ruling does not, however, require the state to produce the “source code of the FRT algorithm and any similar proprietary information applicable to the FRT utilized by the State,” but, if warranted, a defendant could pursue a discovery request for the proprietary information.

“The right to a fair trial is guaranteed under the Federal and State Constitutions, and due process compels the State to disclose evidence favorable to an accused,” asserts the ruling.

The New Jersey Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an amicus brief in the case, praised the ruling, and one of its attorneys called it a “major victory for civil liberties,” adding it is “one of the first state high court rulings of its kind.” Some states, including Maryland, Montana, and Washington, require law enforcement agencies to disclose the use of FRT to defendants before trial, but few laws and court rulings provide guidance about how the technology is used in the criminal justice system. Regardless of Miles’ guilt or innocence, the ruling is an encouraging sign that more states may recognize the need for transparency regarding FRT as law enforcement increasingly relies on the technology to track and identify suspects.

The post New Jersey Supreme Court Requires Transparency for Facial Recognition Evidence appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/ZOpxLmY
via IFTTT

America’s Nuclear Industry Doesn’t Need Cronyism To Thrive

Energy Secretary Chris Wright | Illustration: Adani Samat/Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/Midjourney

Energy Secretary Chris Wright declared Thursday, during an interview with CNBC at Idaho National Laboratory, that America had entered the “golden era” of nuclear energy. Wright’s bold proclamation coincides with the Energy Department’s launch this week of a $17.5 billion loan program, through its Office of Energy Dominance Financing, to “rebuild” America’s nuclear supply chain.

The loan program will finance five projects “sponsored by utilities and energy companies nationwide” that will begin construction on 10 large-scale commercial nuclear reactors across the United States by 2030. It’s a lofty goal, and there’s certainly a demand nationwide for new energy generation capacity, but a federal loan program cuts against Wright’s argument that “private capital, private innovators” are steering the nuclear renaissance.

All 10 reactors will be AP1000s built by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, the same company the Trump administration signed a golden shares agreement with last October. It’s no surprise then that the Energy Department’s $17.5 billion loan program—exclusively for Westinghouse’s product—matches the terms of that agreement, in which the government receives a 20 percent share of any dividends “paid out by Westinghouse above a $17.5 billion threshold,” according to Bloomberg‘s Liam Denning.

Projects will be “jointly owned” by Westinghouse and a utility or energy company, each of which will be required to commit $500 million to the venture before any loan is approved. Westinghouse has already signed letters of intent with seven potential partners, according to the Energy Department, though details of the partnerships have yet to be released.

Despite renewed private sector interest in nuclear power, it’s still expensive to build new reactors and power plants. The department’s loan program is intended to alleviate the upfront costs of building new reactors, which have an average cost overrun of $1.56 billion per project, according to one estimate from Boston University’s Institute for Global Sustainability.

The Westinghouse loan program is a step backward for an administration that has mostly recognized that the largest roadblock to deploying nuclear power is often the government itself.

Last June, to meet the president’s goal of tripling the nation’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050, the Energy Department launched its Reactor Pilot Program. The program aims to have three new self-sustaining, advanced, and smaller reactors by July 4 and fast-track viable projects through a new commercial licensing process.

The program is off to a successful start. This month, advanced nuclear reactors built by Antares Nuclear and Valar Atomics, respectively, reached the criticality milestone, with AALO Atomics set to join them “in the next few days,” according to Wright.

Yet there’s an important distinction between the reactors approved through the pilot program and the prospective reactors backed by federal loans. The three projects were able to cut through regulatory red tape thanks to the pilot program, but the private sector financed them entirely.

Since launching a few years ago, Valar Atomics has raised over $489 million in private capital, and Antares Nuclear has raised over $140 million. AALO Atomics raised $100 million in its last funding round alone. It appears all they needed was for the government to get out of their way.

In contrast, even though the AP1000 is the only large advanced reactor commercially operating in the United States, it’s difficult to believe the Trump administration didn’t choose Westinghouse because the government has a vested interest in its success.

Competition breeds innovation. The Trump administration could seemingly achieve its goal of energy dominance by streamlining the licensing process—which it has started to do—to allow other firms to compete with Westinghouse’s approved design, rather than picking winners and losers and putting taxpayers on the hook for the project’s success.

Bringing large-scale advanced reactors online by the “early to mid 2030s” is an ambitious timeline, given that the only other AP1000s to be completed—Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia—took nearly 17 years from initial permits to completion, with a cost overrun of nearly $21 billion.

Increasing nuclear power generation in the U.S. is a worthy goal. With the private sector already eyeing investments in the nuclear industry, there’s simply no need for the government to put its thumb on the scale to usher in a true “golden era” for the industry.

The post America's Nuclear Industry Doesn't Need Cronyism To Thrive appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/JAoROjz
via IFTTT

The Right Way To Fight a Trade War

This week, guest host Eric Boehm is joined by Financial Times columnist and economist Soumaya Keynes to discuss her new book, How to Win a Trade War.

They examine Donald Trump’s tariff policies, whether trade wars can ever be won, and why Keynes believes that simply saying no one wins a trade war is no longer enough. She explains how China’s economic model challenged the old rules-based trading system and why many policymakers now see Beijing as a unique economic rival.

They also discuss the collapse of the World Trade Organization’s dispute-settlement system, the growing role of national security in trade policy, and the difficulties of coordinating with allies in an increasingly fragmented global economy. Finally, Keynes explains why trade wars require restraint, how economic conflicts can spiral into broader geopolitical tensions, and what a future trading system might look like.

0:00—Can trade wars be won?

5:03—Differences in the second Trump administration

8:15—The analogy of pirates for global trade

16:44—The collapse of the rules-based trading system

20:13—How China changed the global economy

24:36—Trade policy and national security

31:52—The future of the global trading system

39:38—How should the next president handle trade?

40:46—Soumaya Keynes musical performance

Producer: Paul Alexander

Audio Mixer: Ian Keyser

The post The Right Way To Fight a Trade War appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/LDazr0w
via IFTTT

Amazon Prime Day Household Spending Underwhelms, Survey Finds

The massive four-day shopping event for Amazon Prime members kicked off Tuesday and runs through the end of the week, but early survey data suggest the sales event is off to a sluggish start, with average household spending on day one tracking below last year’s pace.

Bloomberg cited high-frequency data from market research firm Numerator, which surveyed thousands of Prime members and found that the average household had spent about $89 as of 4 p.m. Tuesday, the first day of Prime Day.

That average total sales ticket was down about 16% from the same point during last year’s event, suggesting Amazon’s Prime Day is off to a softer start as cash-strapped consumers are still reeling from months of soaring gasoline and diesel prices, despite the latest pullback in pump prices following an interim US-Iran peace deal.

Another reason for the softer activity on day one of Prime Day could be that cash-strapped consumers are simply not seeing the deals they expected. That was echoed by marketing firm PMG, which said Prime Day discounts would be lighter this year. Some of that is because merchants face higher costs and tariff uncertainty, both of which are pressuring margins.

According to Numerator, about half of shoppers said inflation and higher living costs have driven them to Prime Day. Throughout the four-day shopping period, the survey found that households plan to spend about $187.

Ohio retiree Patrice Kihlken told Bloomberg that discounts on summer dresses and jewelry-making supplies were rather disappointing.

“It’s just underwhelming to me,” said Kihlken, 65. “Most of the things that I looked at, they’re 5%, 10%, maybe 15% off. Anything that’s really nice is not on sale.”

Prime Day’s slow start should be seen as a proxy for consumer sentiment, as it shows household willingness to spend outside normal weekly purchases, as well as tests discount elasticity, or the willingness of households to respond to deals.

The takeaway so far is that the soft start is an ominous sign, but there are several days left in the big sale.

Analysts from UBS to Piper Sandler have pointed out incoming tailwinds for consumers with plunging fuel prices:

Yet there might be a lag period before consumer sentiment finally shifts higher and translates into higher spending.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 11:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/hw9xrT7 Tyler Durden

How Resilient?

By Bas van Geffen, senior macro strategist at Rabobank

A cargo ship was hit by an unknown object near the coast of Oman yesterday. The vessel took some damage, but the company reported that “crew, vessel, and cargo are all safe.”

The ship has since left the strait, and tankers continue to transit. Still, these attacks force a rethink about the safety of the Strait of Hormuz, just as shipping from the Gulf region was starting to pick up again. The International Maritime Organization temporarily halted its evacuation plan for ships leaving the Gulf, and several tankers changed course – possibly after instructions from Iran.

US officials stated the ship had been struck by an Iranian drone. And one of these officials said the hit was likely deliberate: the drone had manoeuvred to the side of the ship before it attacked. Plus, the incident happened just hours after the IRGC had warned ships to only use the routes that Iran had approved. Vessels that do not are “not covered by the safe passage guarantee.”

That could of course be coincidence. However, if Iran was indeed behind the attack, the IRGC warning was perhaps not out of concerns that there might still be mines in those shipping lanes, but because there aren’t. That is, perhaps, ships were exiting at a faster rate than Iran had foreseen, as it tries to retain as much leverage as possible during the talks with the US. Or maybe Iran was unhappy that Oman cooperated with the US and the UN, by allowing vessels to transit through its side of the strait.

The attacks are the latest in a series of tests whether the memorandum of understanding will be upheld by both sides. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon is another. Iran has said that Israel must leave Lebanon today, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has no intention to withdraw.

However, energy markets seem to believe the deal will hold. At $73.8 for a barrel of Brent, crude prices are still towards the lower end of this week’s trading range, despite the latest incident in Hormuz.

Indeed, as fragile as the deal may be, both Iran and the US have a motive to stick to it – even though US officials blamed Iran for the incident, they also immediately downplayed the incident. The MOU allows Iran to sell oil and Iran may be able to get some resources back into the hurting economy. Meanwhile, President Trump admitted that US “economic catastrophe” loomed within four to six weeks, if the MOU had not been signed and the stalemate had continued.

So, earlier this week, we updated our scenarios. We now expect talks to continue – possibly for longer than the 60 days that were originally agreed to in the MOU. However, ultimately the set of outcomes is limited to Iran or the US getting the better deal, or new tensions if neither side is willing to accept defeat. We assume the latter outcome as our base case failing a shift in Iranian deliverables on tolls, uranium, and Hezbollah. However, it is a close call and the timing is near-impossible to predict.

Whilst not of “catastrophic” proportions yet, the Iran war is clearly starting to show in US economic data. US PCE inflation rose to 4.1% in May, in line with expectations. Underlying inflation has been accelerating since late last year, and that trend was kept intact.

Core inflation came in at 3.4%, which is the fastest pace in 2.5 years’ time. In the Powell-era, this used to be the Fed’s favourite inflation indicator. Warsh’s favourite metric gives the Fed a little more respite, perhaps. The trimmed-mean PCE inflation rate, ticked up to 2.4%, a level it has been hovering around since the turn of the year. But the key driver behind accelerating core inflation were services prices, notably in financial services, insurance, and transportation services. Pressure from tariff hikes has continued to build gradually as well. So, overall, stickiness seems to have broadened somewhat.

Despite these higher prices, US consumers continue to spend. Real personal spending increased by 0.3% m/m, which was a little better than expected – however that does come on the back of a slight downward revision of the April data.

Another potential risk to consumer spending is the shifting sentiment about AI and tech stocks. Fresh doubts about the AI rally left the Kospi index 7% lower on the week, after a rollercoaster ride that triggered circuit breakers on the way down. The mood soured on Tuesday and Wednesday. Then, Micron’s bumper earnings report reassured investors somewhat. But tech stocks are leading the decline again today.

The Korean index indicates growing caution about AI and tech. That is not limited to the Korean index, but global markets are still more composed. European equities are broadly opening in the red – albeit much less dramatically than the Kospi’s 5.8% loss on the day, or the 4.2% decline in the Japanese Nikkei.

These doubts about the sector are despite –or because of?- European plans to become digitally sovereign. Earlier this month, the European Commission adopted a “tech sovereignty package.” And the EU joined the US’ Pax Silica this week, which excludes China from supply chains for AI-capable semiconductors.

The agreement is a non-binding declaration of intent. Nonetheless, it will certainly anger China. The declaration follows on earlier discussions on trade imbalances, which the EU now sees as a more urgent problem. The Commission is looking to implement a law that requires EU companies to diversify their supply chains, which is mainly aimed at de-risking from China – even though Brussels did not name the country specifically. Beijing has already said it would retaliate.

And blocking China from AI supply chains is insufficient. If the European Commission is serious about tech sovereignty, then it must also be prepared to pick a fight with the US over its role in European technology – or at least accept that subsequent steps towards autonomy could lead to retaliatory measures from Washington.

More pressing, perhaps, are the trade tensions surrounding the renewal of the USMCA, the free-trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada. Although the agreement does not expire on 1 July, it does face its first mandatory six-year joint review. The FT reports that the car industry could derail the agreement – or may at least put a strain on negotiations.

The US has effectively banned Chinese cars, and the US automobile industry will pressure President Trump to uphold that ban. However, Canada and particularly Mexico have embraced Chinese cars. The Canadian minister of Industry has recently met with Chinese carmakers to explore investments in Canadian production capacity. That may be incompatible with US policy, and review of the USMCA. At the same time, any new trade deal may become a bit less attractive to Canada if Chinese investments make the Canadian auto industry less dependent on the traditional North American supply chain.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 06/26/2026 – 11:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/1ZYQ5ve Tyler Durden