Deutsche Bank: Tesla’s Q2 Vehicle Deliveries Tracking Above Consensus Expectations
Tesla could be on track to deliver a stronger than expected second quarter, according to a new research note from Deutsche Bank analyst Edison Yu and his automotive team.
The firm now expects Tesla to report approximately 416,000 vehicle deliveries during the second quarter of 2026. That estimate is about 10,000 vehicles above the company compiled consensus and sits modestly ahead of most Wall Street expectations, which generally range between 413,000 and 420,000 deliveries.
If Deutsche Bank’s forecast proves accurate, Tesla would post delivery growth of 16% from the first quarter and 8% from the same period a year ago. The results would mark a meaningful rebound following a weaker start to the year. According to the analysts, international markets are doing most of the heavy lifting.
Europe is expected to be Tesla’s strongest region, with deliveries rising nearly 40% from a year ago. Deutsche Bank believes improving demand across the region is the primary reason the company is on pace to outperform expectations.
China is also expected to contribute to the stronger quarter, although growth there is forecast to be much more modest at roughly 3% year over year. Registration data through May tracked close to 74,000 vehicles, while the bank estimates total second quarter deliveries from China will reach approximately 133,000 units. June order activity has also remained solid, with roughly 40,000 orders recorded through June 21. Deutsche Bank believes there is enough time left in the quarter for deliveries to reach its estimate.
North America remains the weakest part of Tesla’s business. The bank expects deliveries in the region to decline about 21% from the same quarter last year. Even so, volumes are still projected to improve about 7% compared with the first quarter, suggesting conditions have stabilized somewhat despite softer demand.
Beyond the quarter itself, Deutsche Bank remains constructive on Tesla’s full year outlook. The firm believes the company can deliver roughly 1.63 million vehicles during 2026, which would keep annual deliveries essentially flat even without a meaningful contribution from any new vehicle models.
The report suggests Tesla may not need a major product launch to stabilize sales this year. Instead, stronger demand in Europe combined with resilient performance in China could be enough to offset continued weakness in North America.
Investors will now be watching Tesla’s official delivery report to see whether the company’s international strength is enough to produce another quarter that comes in ahead of expectations.
President Donald Trump indicated on June 29 that he may not sign a bill that Congress passed that aims to make housing more affordable.
Trump told reporters at the White House in Washington that he has not decided whether to sign the housing bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which Congress approved in a bipartisan fashion earlier in the month and targets permitting times, boosts financial incentives, and aims to make it easier to obtain mortgages.
“I think it’s so unimportant compared to the Save America Act,” Trump said.
“To me, compared to the Save America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”
Trump had been poised to sign the housing legislation, but canceled those plans so as to try to force Congress to pass the Save America Act, which would require voters to prove they are American citizens to vote in federal elections.
The House of Representatives has passed the act, but it has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats oppose it over concerns that it could exclude voters who meet the standards but lack the necessary documents.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said over the weekend that the housing bill would be transmitted to Trump on Monday and that he was confident it would become law.
Johnson said the bill was a priority for Republicans because it would bring down housing costs and reduce regulation.
Trump has said that concerns about affordability are overblown.
“They say, ‘Oh, he doesn’t realize prices are high,’” he said in a speech in December 2025.
“Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. They always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.”
He said more recently that he does not consider the financial situation of Americans when deciding on next steps in the war with Iran.
Trump said Monday at the White House, where he signed a directive expanding Americans’ ability to repair their own vehicles, that the housing bill had not yet been sent to him.
“It’s coming, I understand,” he said. “And then I’ll make a decision.”
Once Trump receives the bill, he has 10 days, excluding any Sundays, to veto or sign the legislation.
If he does not act within that period, the bill will become law automatically. If Trump vetoes the legislation, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber.
A coalition of 25 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration’s rules implementing new Medicaid work requirements. The suit claims the work regulations unlawfully restrict exemptions for medically vulnerable recipients.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks to overturn the administration’s rule governing eligibility exemptions tied to the work requirements.
The states contend the rule conflicts with congressional intent by making it more difficult for individuals with illnesses to qualify for exemptions.
According to the complaint, the Trump administration’s policy will “cause immediate and irreparable harm” to state Medicaid programs.
The lawsuit argues the rule “will further strain safety net providers, lead to more uncompensated emergency care, and raise other costs associated with newly uninsured, medically frail residents.
And it will cause rural hospitals to be even more likely to shutter.”
The legal challenge was brought by 23 Democratic attorneys general along with the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, both of which have Republican attorneys general.
The states also allege the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) violated administrative procedure laws by adopting a rule that differs significantly from earlier guidance provided to states on implementing the work requirements.
The Trump administration has defended Medicaid work requirements as part of an effort to ensure public assistance programs are directed toward eligible recipients while encouraging workforce participation.
Under the policy, Medicaid beneficiaries must complete at least 80 hours of work or other approved activities each month to maintain coverage no later than Jan. 1.
States must begin notifying Medicaid recipients by Aug. 31 about how they can comply with the new requirements.
AeroVironment shares surged the most in nearly two decades in early trading after the defense contractor – best known for its loitering munitions and unmanned systems – reported stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter results and issued fiscal 2027 revenue guidance that topped Wall Street estimates tracked by Bloomberg.
AeroVironment’s fiscal fourth-quarter revenue jumped 31% to $642 million, well ahead of the Bloomberg Consensus estimate of $556.4 million, driven mostly by its autonomous systems unit and soaring demand for Switchblade, Red Dragon, and Titan.
Switchblade
Adjusted EBITDA of $140.1 million and adjusted earnings of $1.84 per share also beat expectations. Initial fiscal 2027 guidance was broadly in line, with revenue projected at $2.125 billion to $2.225 billion, implying about 10% organic growth.
A quick look at AeroVironment’s fourth-quarter earnings, courtesy of Bloomberg:
Revenue $641.6 million vs. $275.1 million y/y, estimate $556.4 million
Adjusted EPS $1.84 vs. $1.61 y/y, estimate $1.41
Income from operations $56.9 million vs. $13.8 million y/y, estimate $39.4 million
Adjusted Ebitda $140.1 million vs. $61.6 million y/y, estimate $126.1 million
Gross profit $202.6 million vs. $100.3 million y/y, estimate $175.6 million
… and 2027 year forecast:
Sees revenue $2.13 billion to $2.23 billion, estimate $2.16 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)
Sees adjusted EPS $3.02 to $3.34, estimate $3.79
Sees adjusted Ebitda $305 million to $325 million, estimate $346.2 million
Stifel analysts noted AeroVironment’s strength in the drone and counter-drone space:
AeroVironment is a leader in several key areas in new defense, namely loitering munitions (Switchblade family of drones) that we believe will be critical as the entire industry undergoes a transformation.
The company’s merger with BlueHalo provides exposure in space, counterdrone, and missiles, all of which are priorities for the DoD.
We anticipate a steep ramp in organic EBITDA in the legacy AVAV portfolio and BlueHalo.
Our Buy rating reflects AeroVironment’s positioning as a pure-play new defense tech company with rapidly growing sales and earnings driving increased investor enthusiasm and multiple expansion.
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Will Lee noted:
AeroVironment’s fiscal 2027 sales targets seem achievable, fueled by expectations of robust demand across its loitering munition, drone and counter-drone, or C-UAS, portfolio. Still, sales are skewed toward 2H, and US budget delays might push them further out into 2028.
KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Michael Leshock noted:
AeroVironment is positioned to capitalize on the proliferation of UAS/cUAS and increased government spending in defense and space-related programs. Should geopolitical tensions intensify, AVAV is positioned among the top beneficiaries.
In early trading, AeroVironment shares were up nearly 31%, which would mark the stock’s largest one-day gain on record if the move holds into the cash session. Year to date, shares are down 42.5% as of Monday’s close. Short interest remains elevated, with about 13% of the float sold short, equivalent to roughly 4.8 million shares.
Perfect timing on AeroVironment. We recently laid out for readers how to capitalize on the accelerating “asymmetric warfare boom,” a theme that appears poised to gain momentum in the quarters ahead. Read the full note here.
In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 – Trump’s attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present – violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.
Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority’s constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute – leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.
Birthright citizenship – the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen – has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court’s 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray’s majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies “the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country,” applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).
For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.
The Modern Challenges
In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile – essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates “anchor babies,”encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.
On January 20, 2025 – his first day in office for his second term – President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:
The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
The mother’s presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.
The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment’s original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.
The Path to the Supreme Court
The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as “blatantly unconstitutional.” In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.
Today’s SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is “Barbara,” a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.
During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order – emphasizing historical sources, the role of “domicile” in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs’ counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.
Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and whether the government’s proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment’s text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration’s position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court’s term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.
Another JOLT: Jobs Opening Smash Expectations, Despite Another Drop In Number Of Hires
Another month, another whopping beat by the BLS JOLTS job openings report.
One month after the April JOLTS report came out with a whopping 9-sigma beat to estimates, when it showed that in April the US added a whopping 731K job openings to 7.618 million (and up 520K from a year ago), smashing estimates of 6.9 million, moments ago the BLS reported that in May, the number of total job openings printed at 7.594 million, almost as if it was designed to post another improvement from last month’s downward revised 7.585MM (from 7.618MM), and once again smashed estimates of 7.296MM.
While not as historic as last month’s record 9-sigma beat, today’s print was still a solid 2-sigma beat to the median estimate.
It was also the 5th consecutive beat of estimates and 8th in the past 10!
Where did the openings come from? According to the BLS,the notable increase came from an increase in wholesale trade (+71,000), but as can be seen from the table below, there were also increases in manufacturing and leisure and hospitality; on the other side, openings dropped in financial services, and private education.
Notably, unlike last month’s record increase in Professional and Business service job openings in April, May’s increase for the category was a tame 12K to 1.485 million. Also of note, Federal government dropped by 14K to 83K, the second lowest print of 2026 and not much above the record low hit last August, even as the total number of government job openings rose driven by an increase in state and local.
The continued strength in job openings prints, coupled with the modest increase in unemployed workers means that after 9 months of labor surplus, we now have a second consecutive month of more job openings than unemployed workes, and in May the surplus was 287K, the biggest surplus since Jan 2025, and a reversal to the “deficit” regime observed since last July.
The latest JOLTS report also means that after falling back to 0.9x in March, in April the ratio of job openings rose over 1.0x and was the highest since January 2025.
But while the job openings number was very strong for another month, this month we saw continued weakness in hires and barely any improvement in quits, In May, the number of Quits dropped to 5.170MM from 5.215MM, again approaching the post covid lows; quits – or the “take his job and shove it” indicator – rose modestly to 3.065MM from 3.043MM, and followed the 183K plunge in March.
It goes without saying that a surge in job openings while hires are dropping, and few people are voluntarily leaving their jobs, while payrolls are growing (as we will find out on Thursday), leads one to scratch their head just what is going on here, besides data massaging of course.
In any case, since this hires number feeds directly into the payrolls calculations (after netting out separations) this explains why the May payrolls report surged by 172K, even if the JOLTS implied number is barely a third as strong.
Overall, this was a very strong JOLTS report, and shows that after some significant weakness in late 2025, US labor market has continued to stabilize throughout 2026. Of course, the report also lags the payrolls report by a month, which is why it gives us little insight into what Thurday’s jobs report will be, although if the hires less separations dataset is any indication, it suggests that the June print will come well below expectations.
Supreme Court: States Can Ban Trans Athletes From Girls’ Sports
The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states can block biological transgender males from competing in girls’ sports. In a 6-3 ruling, the court gave an iron-clad answer to the question.
Writing for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires schools to carve out an exception for transgender athletes who’ve undergone hormone therapy or never experienced male puberty. States can draw the line at biological sex, full stop – no judge-administered athlete-by-athlete fairness hearings required. The ruling reverses both the Fourth Circuit (which sided with West Virginia’s B.P.J.) and the Ninth Circuit (which sided with Idaho’s Lindsay Hecox), and lands squarely in the wake of last year’s Skrmetti decision, extending its “this is a sex classification, not a transgender classification” framework from medical care straight into the locker room.
Background
Roughly half the states – approximately 27 – have enacted laws in recent years restricting participation in girls’ and women’s school sports to those whose biological sex, as determined at birth, matches the team category. These measures, often titled “Fairness in Women’s Sports” acts or similar, reflect concerns over competitive fairness, safety, and the preservation of opportunities for biological females amid rising participation by transgender athletes.
The two cases before the Court arise from Idaho and West Virginia.
Idaho’s law (enacted 2020) categorically bars transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s teams in public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools. It defines eligibility based on biological sex and requires sex verification (often involving invasive procedures) for athletes on girls’ teams but not boys’ teams.
West Virginia’s law (enacted 2021) similarly requires that participation on teams designated for girls or women be based on biological sex.
Lindsay Hecox, a biological male, challenged Idaho’s law after seeking to compete on Boise State University’s women’s track and cross-country teams – and later participated in club sports. Hecox’s lawsuit alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and imposes unequal verification burdens.
B.P.J., another biological male who has identified as a girl since third grade and has taken puberty blockers and estrogen, challenged West Virginia’s ban after competing on their high school’s girls’ track and cross-country teams. The suit claims violations of both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX (the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs).
Lower federal courts blocked enforcement of both laws. The 9th Circuit found Idaho’s measure likely violated equal protection by intending to exclude transgender girls/women and by imposing sex-based verification only on girls’ teams. The 4th Circuit held West Virginia’s law likely violated Title IX by discriminating against B.P.J. on the basis of sex.
At oral arguments on January 13 of this year, the states and supporting parties (including the Trump administration) argued that the laws classify on the basis of biological sex – a classification long accepted in sports to ensure fairness and safety given average physiological differences in strength, speed, muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular capacity that emerge after male puberty. They contended that sex-separated teams are permissible and even required under Title IX regulations, that states need not create perfect individual accommodations, and that allowing transgender girls/women (even those on hormone therapy) into female categories undermines the very purpose of sex-segregated sports. They emphasized that transgender boys can generally compete on boys’ teams, so the laws do not single out transgender status per se.
Challengers countered that the bans discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sex, that many transgender girls/women (especially those who never experienced full male puberty or who have undergone hormone suppression) lack meaningful competitive advantages, and that categorical exclusion stigmatizes transgender students, deprives them of athletic opportunities, and violates both constitutional equal protection and Title IX’s promise of equal access. They urged individualized assessments rather than blanket rules.
Justices’ questioning suggested a likely majority inclined to uphold the state laws, with conservative members emphasizing biological differences, state authority over education and athletics, and deference to longstanding sex-based categories in sports.
Conference Board Consumer Survey Signals Ugly Job Market, Weakest ‘Present Situation’ In Over 5 Years
Amid a plethora of revisions (lower), The Conference Board’s measure of Americans’ Consumer Confidence rose very modestly in June (from 90.6 to 91.2 – a big miss on the headline print’s expectation of 94.4).
However, while Expectations rose to their highest level of the year, the Present Situation tumbled to its lowest since March 2021…
“Consumer confidence inched up in June as falling oil prices in recent weeks provided some relief to consumer inflation fears,” said Dana M Peterson, Chief Economist, The Conference Board.
“Consumer appraisals of current business conditions were slightly more positive compared to last month.
However, perceptions of the current labor market softened measurably as the percentage of consumers saying jobs were ‘hard to get’ rose to 22.5%, the highest level since January 2021 (22.8%).
Moreover, consumers anticipate little change in the labor market six months from now.
This was offset by improving expectations for business conditions and incomes.”
Consumers’ average and median 12-month inflation expectations were less elevated…
Among age groups, confidence for consumers under age 35 remained the highest, but confidence for all age groups trended downward on a six-month moving average basis.
By income, on a six-month moving average basis, confidence was mixed or little changed across all categories.
By generation, confidence fell the most for the Silent Generation but was stable or lower for others on a six-month moving average basis.
By political affiliation, confidence among Independents and Democrats rose while Republicans were somewhat less positive on a month-over-month basis.
Consumers’ write-in responses on factors affecting the economy continued to skew towards pessimism in June.
References to prices and oil and gas eased in frequency but remain elevated. Mentions of war, geopolitics, and conflict eased, reflecting some easing of consumer concerns about the inflationary impacts of the war in the Middle East.
With the birthright citizenship opinion handed down, I thought we were done for the term. But at 10:51 ET, NPR posts a story with Nina Totenberg’s byline: “Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion overturning Roe v. Wade, retires.”
The story had no actual details about the retirement, but included a lengthy profile of Justice Alito. It seems this piece was pre-written just in case of a retirement.
About 15 minutes later, the story was taken down. (I preserved a PDF.) There is now an Editors Note;
Editors Note: Earlier today we erroneously published a story saying that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. He has not announced his retirement and we have retracted the story.
Why was it published? Did someone make a mistake an erroneously click “submit.” Or did Nina Totenberg green-light the story? I think NPR should provide an explanation of what happened here. These sorts of announcements can move markets and have a huge impact before they are correct.
This mess–up brings to mind the faulty reporting about NFIB v. Sebelius in 2012.
I correctly predicted that Coach Kavanaugh would have the transgender sports cases and the Chief would write birthright citizenship. I was wrong about Alito authoring NRSC, but that means he did not write anything in December, which gives weight to my theory that Alito lost the majority opinion in Hamm v. Smith.
I will have much more to say about today’s cases, and yesterday’s cases, and last week’s cases, in due course.
