Zero Hedge

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?

US Manufacturing By State: Who Gains Most From 'Made In America'?

President Trump has championed the idea that a key part of making America great again is bringing back industries that left the country in recent decades. With his tariff-driven trade policy, the White House has promoted “Made in America” as a way to create jobs and boost the economy.

Based on April 2025 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this map, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, highlights the U.S. states leading and lagging in manufacturing employment.

California Leads in Manufacturing

Manufacturing remains geographically diverse across the U.S., with major hubs on both coasts and in the interior.

In terms of absolute numbers, California leads the nation, with 1.22 million manufacturing jobs. Texas follows with 970,600 jobs, while Ohio and Michigan maintain their traditional industrial strength with 687,500 and 597,600 jobs, respectively.

State Manufacturing Jobs Jobs per 100k California 1,222.9K 3094.0 Texas 970.6K 3101.9 Ohio 687.5K 5785.4 Michigan 597.6K 5893.2 Illinois 574.7K 4521.6 Pennsylvania 561.5K 4293.2 Indiana 523.3K 7557.5 Wisconsin 462.8K 7763.8 North Carolina 459.3K 4158.1 Florida 434.6K 1859.5 Georgia 426.5K 3814.5 New York 412.0K 2073.8 Tennessee 364.3K 5040.3 Minnesota 323.5K 5584.2 Alabama 287.5K 5574.2 Missouri 283.9K 4545.7 Washington 274.2K 3445.5 South Carolina 263.0K 4800.3 Kentucky 260.6K 5679.6 New Jersey 255.4K 2688.2 Virginia 243.5K 2763.5 Massachusetts 229.8K 3220.2 Iowa 217.2K 6700.6 Arizona 193.8K 2555.9 Oregon 181.7K 4252.9 Kansas 173.0K 5823.7 Arkansas 165.0K 5342.7 Utah 155.3K 4432.6 Connecticut 154.2K 4195.8 Colorado 150.1K 2519.5 Louisiana 143.8K 3127.6 Mississippi 140.8K 4784.2 Oklahoma 139.5K 3406.3 Maryland 110.4K 1762.7 Nebraska 103.3K 5150.9 Idaho 77.4K 3866.9 New Hampshire 68.2K 4840.2 Nevada 67.7K 2071.9 Maine 51.7K 3679.7 West Virginia 46.7K 2638.4 South Dakota 44.3K 4790.9 Rhode Island 40.1K 3605.1 New Mexico 29.5K 1384.8 North Dakota 27.9K 3502.5 Vermont 27.2K 4194.3 Delaware 26.7K 2538.2 Montana 20.8K 1829.0 Hawaii 13.1K 905.9 Alaska 11.9K 1607.8 Wyoming 10.6K 1803.9 District of Columbia 1.2K 170.9

Several Southern states have also built strong manufacturing bases. North Carolina (459,300), Georgia (426,500), and Tennessee (364,300) each rank among the top states, supported by industries such as automotive, aerospace, and food processing.

Wisconsin, ranked in the top 10 for total manufacturing employment, stands out for outperforming its size. Although it’s only the 20th most populous state, its manufacturing base remains strong, thanks in part to food and dairy processing. In per capita terms, it’s number one in the nation with 7,763.8 manufacturing jobs for every 100,000 people.

Florida, another top 10 state, has emerged as a growth story. Between 2019 and 2023, the state’s manufacturing employment grew by nearly 10%, highlighting the sector’s expansion in one of the country’s largest economies.

At the other end of the spectrum, Wyoming (10,600 jobs), Alaska (11,900), and Washington, D.C. (1,200) recorded the lowest levels of manufacturing employment. The latter (D.C.) also has the lowest numbers per capita.

To learn more about Trump’s impact in his first 100 days, check out this graphic that compares S&P 500 returns during post-WWII presidents’ first 100 days.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 05:45

The Fed Is Very Worried About Tariff Passthrough Onto Prices

The Fed Is Very Worried About Tariff Passthrough Onto Prices

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The Fed, businesses, and consumers are all concerned over price hikes.

Worried About Prices?

Please consider the Atlanta Fed research article Worried about Tariff Passthrough onto Prices? So Are Business Execs.

Over the past couple of months, newswires have focused on the potential for elevated tariff rates to feed through into higher inflation and potentially affect output growth as well. Indeed, Chair Powell, in his last post-FOMC meeting press conference said, “What looks likely, given the scope and scale of the tariffs, is that…the risks to higher inflation, higher unemployment have increased.

Recent research from economists at the Atlanta Fed suggests that if firms are able to pass through all the costs of tariffs, retail prices would increase significantly―as much as 1.6 percent (depending on how effective tariff rates evolve from here).

And even at a 50 percent passthrough rate, the impact on prices would be large enough to be felt in the aggregate (0.8 percent increase in retail prices). How plausible is full passthrough? Going back to the last episode with rising tariffs in 2018, research icon denoting destination link is offsite showed that the cost of the tariffs was almost entirely passed through onto domestic prices.

In this environment, where policy changes lead to sharp increases in costs for many firms, we were curious about how firms would respond, especially in light of a potential reduction in demand that typically accompanies a price hike. So, we turned to the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations survey (BIE), a monthly survey of Sixth District firms that is well positioned to ask timely questions on economic conditions facing firms. In gathering information for the April 2025 BIE survey, we asked firms about their ability to pass through increased costs caused by a new economic policy without a resulting reduction in demand.

The interesting twist in this line of questioning is the inclusion of the phrase “Based on current levels of demand.” The interpretation here is that firms are telling us how much of the cost increase they would be able to pass through to customers before it had a negative impact on demand for that good or service.

Although a diversity of views is apparent, on average firms tell us they expect to be able to pass through 51.1 percent of a 10 percent cost increase, and 47.3 percent of a 25 percent cost increase, without reducing current levels of demand. 

In sum, firms with about normal or greater-than-normal sales expect to be able to pass through more of the cost increases while maintaining the same levels of demand for their goods or services. And figure 3 shows us that those firms are more likely to be larger firms, due to their smaller sales gap compared to “normal.” In the aggregate, business executives see their current sales levels as about 8 percentage points below “normal,” which is much weaker than firms’ relative position entering 2018. In this environment, firms on average anticipate passing through a little more than half of a 10 percent cost increase without damaging demand. It’s not yet clear where the average tariff rate will ultimately settle, or how firms’ passthrough rates will evolve from here. However, it does appear that most firms anticipate sacrificing demand should they choose to fully pass a tariff-related cost increase on to customers.

Only Three Things Can Happen
  1. Corporations can pass on the tariffs

  2. Corporations can eat the cost

  3. A combination of the above

The Results
  • To the extent corporations pass on the costs, consumers will pay the tariff. That means consumers will cut back somewhere else, exhaust savings, or go into debt.

  • To the extent corporations eat the costs, that’s a direct hit on corporate profits.

  • If corporations misjudge how much they can pass on, they will also take a hit on profits.

Corporate Profits

If you are thinking tariffs are a huge drain on aggregate corporate profits, then you are thinking correctly.

Fed Beige Book Shows Only 3 of 12 Regions Growing, 6 Declining

On June 5, 2025, I noted Fed Beige Book Shows Only 3 of 12 Regions Growing, 6 Declining

This report reeks of stagflation, defined as rising prices and recession simultaneously.

Prices

Prices have increased at a moderate pace since the previous report. There were widespread reports of contacts expecting costs and prices to rise at a faster rate going forward. A few Districts described these expected cost increases as strong, significant, or substantial. All District reports indicated that higher tariff rates were putting upward pressure on costs and prices. 

ISM Services Dips Into Contraction as New Orders and Backlogs Plunge

On June 4, I noted ISM Services Dips Into Contraction as New Orders and Backlogs Plunge

“The Prices Index registered 68.7 percent in May, a 3.6-percentage point increase from April’s reading of 65.1 percent; the index has elevated 7.8 percentage points in the last two months to reach its highest level since November 2022 (69.4 percent). This is the first time the index has recorded this high of a two-month increase since a 9.2-percentage point gain in February and March 2021. The May reading is also its sixth in a row above 60 percent.”

What caught my eye was a plunge in new orders and backlog of orders, yet prices rose 96 consecutive months and just accelerated.

Should the Fed Cut? Hike? Do Anything?

Many say the Fed should cut because jobs are slowing and so is inflation.

But on the basis of tariffs and general disagreement about the rate of inflation, many others stating the Fed should hike rates.

Those who are open to either stagflation or economic collapse don’t think the Fed should do anything.

I am in that camp with the side note the free market should set rates, not the Fed, not Congress, not the President.

Is the Fed in a Good Spot?

That’s what the Fed says. I am not in that camp.

The economy can tip either way suddenly and severely. And Trump’s tariff whipsaws don’t make the Fed’s life easy.

Fear of Making Mistakes

The Fed does not want to make a policy error in the wrong direction especially after blowing the massive inflation response to Congressional free money coupled with inane QE by the Fed.

So, the Fed cannot be proactive now, even if it wants to, due to FOMMtm

Trumpian Howls

The Fed has its Covid mistake in the back of its mind but a howling Trump in the foreground.

Trump howled about Jerome Powell again on June 4, as noted in Trump Demands Fed Rate Cut After Weakest ADP Payroll Report in 2 Years

ADP reported a slim 37,000 private payroll rise for May.

The payroll report on Friday temporarily halted the howls.

For discussion, please see Nonfarm Payrolls Rise by 139,000 Employment Declines by 696,000

The Fed may easily overreact or underreact. Right now the Fed looks like a deer in headlights.

Finally, the Fed will take a lot of criticism no matter what it does. And it will still have its recent policy mistakes in mind, while also having to deal with Trump.

Is this really a good place for the Fed?

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 05:00

The Fed Is Very Worried About Tariff Passthrough Onto Prices

The Fed Is Very Worried About Tariff Passthrough Onto Prices

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The Fed, businesses, and consumers are all concerned over price hikes.

Worried About Prices?

Please consider the Atlanta Fed research article Worried about Tariff Passthrough onto Prices? So Are Business Execs.

Over the past couple of months, newswires have focused on the potential for elevated tariff rates to feed through into higher inflation and potentially affect output growth as well. Indeed, Chair Powell, in his last post-FOMC meeting press conference said, “What looks likely, given the scope and scale of the tariffs, is that…the risks to higher inflation, higher unemployment have increased.

Recent research from economists at the Atlanta Fed suggests that if firms are able to pass through all the costs of tariffs, retail prices would increase significantly―as much as 1.6 percent (depending on how effective tariff rates evolve from here).

And even at a 50 percent passthrough rate, the impact on prices would be large enough to be felt in the aggregate (0.8 percent increase in retail prices). How plausible is full passthrough? Going back to the last episode with rising tariffs in 2018, research icon denoting destination link is offsite showed that the cost of the tariffs was almost entirely passed through onto domestic prices.

In this environment, where policy changes lead to sharp increases in costs for many firms, we were curious about how firms would respond, especially in light of a potential reduction in demand that typically accompanies a price hike. So, we turned to the Atlanta Fed’s Business Inflation Expectations survey (BIE), a monthly survey of Sixth District firms that is well positioned to ask timely questions on economic conditions facing firms. In gathering information for the April 2025 BIE survey, we asked firms about their ability to pass through increased costs caused by a new economic policy without a resulting reduction in demand.

The interesting twist in this line of questioning is the inclusion of the phrase “Based on current levels of demand.” The interpretation here is that firms are telling us how much of the cost increase they would be able to pass through to customers before it had a negative impact on demand for that good or service.

Although a diversity of views is apparent, on average firms tell us they expect to be able to pass through 51.1 percent of a 10 percent cost increase, and 47.3 percent of a 25 percent cost increase, without reducing current levels of demand. 

In sum, firms with about normal or greater-than-normal sales expect to be able to pass through more of the cost increases while maintaining the same levels of demand for their goods or services. And figure 3 shows us that those firms are more likely to be larger firms, due to their smaller sales gap compared to “normal.” In the aggregate, business executives see their current sales levels as about 8 percentage points below “normal,” which is much weaker than firms’ relative position entering 2018. In this environment, firms on average anticipate passing through a little more than half of a 10 percent cost increase without damaging demand. It’s not yet clear where the average tariff rate will ultimately settle, or how firms’ passthrough rates will evolve from here. However, it does appear that most firms anticipate sacrificing demand should they choose to fully pass a tariff-related cost increase on to customers.

Only Three Things Can Happen
  1. Corporations can pass on the tariffs

  2. Corporations can eat the cost

  3. A combination of the above

The Results
  • To the extent corporations pass on the costs, consumers will pay the tariff. That means consumers will cut back somewhere else, exhaust savings, or go into debt.

  • To the extent corporations eat the costs, that’s a direct hit on corporate profits.

  • If corporations misjudge how much they can pass on, they will also take a hit on profits.

Corporate Profits

If you are thinking tariffs are a huge drain on aggregate corporate profits, then you are thinking correctly.

Fed Beige Book Shows Only 3 of 12 Regions Growing, 6 Declining

On June 5, 2025, I noted Fed Beige Book Shows Only 3 of 12 Regions Growing, 6 Declining

This report reeks of stagflation, defined as rising prices and recession simultaneously.

Prices

Prices have increased at a moderate pace since the previous report. There were widespread reports of contacts expecting costs and prices to rise at a faster rate going forward. A few Districts described these expected cost increases as strong, significant, or substantial. All District reports indicated that higher tariff rates were putting upward pressure on costs and prices. 

ISM Services Dips Into Contraction as New Orders and Backlogs Plunge

On June 4, I noted ISM Services Dips Into Contraction as New Orders and Backlogs Plunge

“The Prices Index registered 68.7 percent in May, a 3.6-percentage point increase from April’s reading of 65.1 percent; the index has elevated 7.8 percentage points in the last two months to reach its highest level since November 2022 (69.4 percent). This is the first time the index has recorded this high of a two-month increase since a 9.2-percentage point gain in February and March 2021. The May reading is also its sixth in a row above 60 percent.”

What caught my eye was a plunge in new orders and backlog of orders, yet prices rose 96 consecutive months and just accelerated.

Should the Fed Cut? Hike? Do Anything?

Many say the Fed should cut because jobs are slowing and so is inflation.

But on the basis of tariffs and general disagreement about the rate of inflation, many others stating the Fed should hike rates.

Those who are open to either stagflation or economic collapse don’t think the Fed should do anything.

I am in that camp with the side note the free market should set rates, not the Fed, not Congress, not the President.

Is the Fed in a Good Spot?

That’s what the Fed says. I am not in that camp.

The economy can tip either way suddenly and severely. And Trump’s tariff whipsaws don’t make the Fed’s life easy.

Fear of Making Mistakes

The Fed does not want to make a policy error in the wrong direction especially after blowing the massive inflation response to Congressional free money coupled with inane QE by the Fed.

So, the Fed cannot be proactive now, even if it wants to, due to FOMMtm

Trumpian Howls

The Fed has its Covid mistake in the back of its mind but a howling Trump in the foreground.

Trump howled about Jerome Powell again on June 4, as noted in Trump Demands Fed Rate Cut After Weakest ADP Payroll Report in 2 Years

ADP reported a slim 37,000 private payroll rise for May.

The payroll report on Friday temporarily halted the howls.

For discussion, please see Nonfarm Payrolls Rise by 139,000 Employment Declines by 696,000

The Fed may easily overreact or underreact. Right now the Fed looks like a deer in headlights.

Finally, the Fed will take a lot of criticism no matter what it does. And it will still have its recent policy mistakes in mind, while also having to deal with Trump.

Is this really a good place for the Fed?

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 05:00

'No ID, No Nudes': Pornhub Pulls Out Of France In Spat Over Age Checks

'No ID, No Nudes': Pornhub Pulls Out Of France In Spat Over Age Checks

Vive la resistance - in reverse. Pornhub and its sister sites YouPorn and RedTube have gone dark in France, yanking access to their content Wednesday in a dramatic protest over a government crackdown on underage users.

A screen displays a “no under-18s” sign in front of the logo of a pornographic website as regulators consider requiring such sites to ensure they are preventing minors from being exposed to their content. Lionel Bonaventure/AFP via Getty Images

The move comes after Aylo - the firm behind the trio of X-rated titans - hit pause on its French operations rather than comply with a new law requiring porn platforms to verify users are 18 or older.

I can confirm that Aylo has made the difficult decision to suspend access to its user-uploaded platforms... in France,” a Pornhub spokesperson said Tuesday. “We will be using our platforms to directly address the French public tomorrow.”

Aylo, which operates some of the world’s most trafficked adult sites, is now in a standoff with France’s digital watchdog, Arcom, which has the power to block sites and fine operators who fail to screen out minors.

French officials aren’t exactly begging them to stay.

If Aylo would rather leave France than apply our laws, they are free to do so,” Clara Chappaz, France’s junior minister for artificial intelligence and digital technology, posted bluntly on X.

According to Arcom, some 2.3 million minors access porn sites every month in France - a clear violation of laws requiring age gating. The government has demanded stricter controls, like government ID or verified digital passports.

But Aylo claims the measures would compromise user privacy and create security risks, setting up a classic clash between data protection and content regulation.

Now, French users clicking over to Pornhub are getting nothing but a cold shower - a sudden blackout that leaves millions of adults scrambling for alternatives.

Whether the blackout is a temporary gambit or a long-term exit remains unclear. But one thing’s for sure: in France, the liberté to browse adult content just got a whole lot harder to come by.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 04:15

'No ID, No Nudes': Pornhub Pulls Out Of France In Spat Over Age Checks

'No ID, No Nudes': Pornhub Pulls Out Of France In Spat Over Age Checks

Vive la resistance - in reverse. Pornhub and its sister sites YouPorn and RedTube have gone dark in France, yanking access to their content Wednesday in a dramatic protest over a government crackdown on underage users.

A screen displays a “no under-18s” sign in front of the logo of a pornographic website as regulators consider requiring such sites to ensure they are preventing minors from being exposed to their content. Lionel Bonaventure/AFP via Getty Images

The move comes after Aylo - the firm behind the trio of X-rated titans - hit pause on its French operations rather than comply with a new law requiring porn platforms to verify users are 18 or older.

I can confirm that Aylo has made the difficult decision to suspend access to its user-uploaded platforms... in France,” a Pornhub spokesperson said Tuesday. “We will be using our platforms to directly address the French public tomorrow.”

Aylo, which operates some of the world’s most trafficked adult sites, is now in a standoff with France’s digital watchdog, Arcom, which has the power to block sites and fine operators who fail to screen out minors.

French officials aren’t exactly begging them to stay.

If Aylo would rather leave France than apply our laws, they are free to do so,” Clara Chappaz, France’s junior minister for artificial intelligence and digital technology, posted bluntly on X.

According to Arcom, some 2.3 million minors access porn sites every month in France - a clear violation of laws requiring age gating. The government has demanded stricter controls, like government ID or verified digital passports.

But Aylo claims the measures would compromise user privacy and create security risks, setting up a classic clash between data protection and content regulation.

Now, French users clicking over to Pornhub are getting nothing but a cold shower - a sudden blackout that leaves millions of adults scrambling for alternatives.

Whether the blackout is a temporary gambit or a long-term exit remains unclear. But one thing’s for sure: in France, the liberté to browse adult content just got a whole lot harder to come by.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 04:15

Bulgaria Set To Join Eurozone In 2026

Bulgaria Set To Join Eurozone In 2026

Authored by RFE/RL staff via OilPrice.com,

  • The European Commission has given Bulgaria the green light to adopt the euro as of January 1, 2026, following a positive assessment of the country's economic convergence.

  • Bulgaria's approval to join the eurozone represents a significant milestone in its broader integration into the European Union, following its recent entry into the Schengen Agreement.

  • Despite facing political and economic challenges, Bulgaria has met the necessary criteria for euro adoption, with final decisions to be made by the Council of the EU.

The European Commission has given Bulgaria the go-ahead to join the eurozone single currency region as of January 1, 2026, the country's second major step in just one year on its path to full integration into the European Union.

The commission, which met on June 4 to convey its decision on the issue, said Bulgaria fulfils the four nominal convergence criteria that are used to evaluate whether a country is ready for euro adoption.

"The euro is a tangible symbol of European strength and unity," said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

The European Central Bank (ECB) also gave a positive assessment of Bulgaria's application, saying it met the criteria of currency stability, inflation, public finances, and interest rates.

“This positive assessment of convergence paves the way for Bulgaria to introduce the euro as of 1 January 2026 and become the 21st EU Member State to join the euro area,” Philip Lane, a member of the ECB Executive Board, said.

“I wish to congratulate Bulgaria on its tremendous dedication to making the adjustments needed.”

The Council of the EU will take the final decisions on euro adoption for Bulgaria, basing its decision on the opinions of the EC and the ECB, as well as from talks with the Eurogroup and European Council.

While adoption of the euro was a condition for joining the European Union, legislative failures, including reforms to combat money laundering, concerns over inflation, and political gridlock -- Bulgaria has had seven elections in the past four years -- have made the path difficult for the country.

Mass protests took place in Sofia and other cities across the country last week, and politicians said after the decision that the task now is to make sure adoption provides benefits, not disruption.

Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov said the government would work to make "the process of introducing the euro smooth, predictable, predictable" and to dispel "the fears that are instilled in people and that are used for political abuse."

Added Boyko Borisov, leader of the GERB party and a former prime minister: "A huge amount of work lies ahead, especially next year, because Bulgarians should feel the benefits of the eurozone."

The decision in favor of adoption is Bulgaria’s second big step in just one year on its path to full integration into the European Union.

In January, Sofia became a full member of Schengen agreement -- and Bulgaria’s borders with neighboring Greece and Romania are now fully open.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 03:30

73% Of Indonesian Men Smoke...

73% Of Indonesian Men Smoke...

In 2025, smoking remains a persistent public health concern, with sharp disparities visible not only across countries but also between genders.

The World Health Organization estimates that tobacco use causes over 8 million premature deaths each year. Of these, more than 7 million are due to direct tobacco use, while around 1.3 million non-smokers die from exposure to second-hand smoke.

The graphic below, via Visual Capitalist's Marcus Lu, highlights the male and female smoking rates in ten major countries. The data is based on projections compiled by Statista.

Gender Disparities in Global Smoking Rates

The most striking contrast is seen in Indonesia, where nearly three-quarters (72.8%) of men are smokers, while just 1.8% of women partake.

This gender gap is also present in China (44.4% vs. 1.4%) and India (10.9% vs. 0.9%), reflecting cultural norms and targeted marketing practices.

In contrast, countries like France and Germany show much narrower disparities. France stands out with almost equal smoking rates among men (35.2%) and women (34.0%), suggesting a more gender-neutral culture around tobacco use.

Meanwhile, the U.S. and Japan fall in the mid-range, with moderate gender gaps and relatively lower overall smoking prevalence compared to Asian and European counterparts.

In Russia, 31.4% of men and 5.7% of women smoke, while in Brazil, smoking rates are lower, with 14.1% of men and 8.1% of women who smoke.

Raw tobacco production is a huge industry. In 2022 alone, around 5.8 million tons of tobacco were produced worldwide, roughly a third of which was in China. Learn more about tobacco production in this graphic on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 02:45

EU Farmer Protests Far From Over As They Battle Threats From Mercosur Trade Agreement And Ukraine

EU Farmer Protests Far From Over As They Battle Threats From Mercosur Trade Agreement And Ukraine

Via Remix News,

Farmers in Spain and France were again protesting agricultural imports from Ukraine and South America under the Mercosur trade agreement ahead of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva visiting France and the expiration of a free trade agreement with Ukraine, writes TopAgrar.pl.

Da Silva wants to convince President Emmanuel Macron to drop his opposition to the EU-Mercosur Agreement, and at a press conference with the French head of state, told press that he would not “leave the Mercosur presidency without having concluded the trade deal,” a position he will be taking up in a few weeks. 

Meanwhile, the French Federation of Agricultural Unions (FNSEA) has once again called on Macron to take action to create a minority in the EU to block the ratification of the Mercosur Agreement by the Council of the European Union.  

In a statement quoted by Reuters, the French organization warned that the agreement will be “devastating for the beef, poultry and sugar industries and compromise the EU’s ambitions in terms of food sovereignty.” 

“We are raising the alarm!” said Alain Carre, head of the French sugar industry group AIBS. 

If an agreement with Mercosur is reached, the French are demanding clear trade rules: “Our demands (for an EU-Mercosur deal) are simple: reciprocity of regulations, traceability of products abroad and much clearer labeling,” said Jean-Michel Schaeffer, head of French poultry industry group Anvol. 

In Spain, hundreds of farmers gathered in Madrid to protest excessive grain imports from Ukraine, which have resulted in grain prices below production costs.

“Spanish farmers will lose €1 billion this year,” Javier Fatas, leader of the farmers’ union COAG from the Aragon region in northeastern Spain, said. 

Spaniards also refuse to import genetically modified grain from Mercosur, which is cheaper than Spanish grain, into the EU.  

Similar sentiments are prevalent in Poland. In June, farmers took to the streets again to express opposition to trade liberalization with Ukraine, the Mercosur agreement, and the Green Deal, reminds TopAgrar.

“Our position should be firm and clear: the customs and limits from before the war must return. Otherwise, we will not be able to compete on the European market, and especially in Poland,” said Stanisław Barna from the grassroots All-Poland Farmers’ Protest.

At the protest in Krążkowy in Wielkopolska, another OOPR representative, Krzysztof Olejnik, called the provisions of the EU-Mercosur Agreement a “spit in the face” of farmers: “If we are talking about Mercosur, we still do not have detailed information about the terms of this agreement. We assume that the terms of this agreement will probably not be favorable for us,” said Krzysztof Olejnik.

The lack of hope for economic improvement in agriculture is combined with a sense of lack of action on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Government and the European Commission. Maciej Zawadzki from the Association of Farmers of Southern Wielkopolska said, “We decided to take to the streets because our issues that were supposed to be resolved are still unresolved. The government remains passive. (…) Unfortunately, we do not see any actions that would improve our position and situation. Quite the opposite: what is happening is working to our disadvantage.”

Stanisław Barna says the only option for farmers now is to put pressure on decision-makers via protests. 

“We want to work with dignity, have a stable situation. Have a decent salary for our work (…) This is what we are reduced to, to make our farms fail. If you do not fight for yourselves, no one will do it for you! Thank you and God bless you for your determination and showing strength today. Let the government see, and Minister Siekierski will finally get down to work, because he has been talking to us for a year and a half, saying that he will prepare a position, but let him finally come to West Pomerania and talk,” he said.

Farmers also hope the newly elected president, Karol Nawrocki, will come through for them. “Mr. President, we are here, we are watching, we are waiting for your decision,” Barna added. “We farmers would like these promises to be fulfilled and not forgotten.”

Macron and Lula did not appear to make much headway on EU-Mercosur trade deal. Macron clearly wants to boost trade and relations with Brazil but he also made clear that he cannot accept the deal in its current form, emphasizing the need for “either mirror clauses or safeguard measures” to ensure Brazilian products conform with EU production standards.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/09/2025 - 02:00

Restoring American Maritime Dominance: A National Imperative

Restoring American Maritime Dominance: A National Imperative

Authored by Andy Thaxton via RealClearWire,

As a career Naval intelligence officer, I spent years observing China’s maritime ascent. Briefing after briefing warned of China’s increasingly aggressive intentions of seapower, and yet, all that analytical churn has had negligible impact on U.S. naval posture. Now, watching from the sidelines, I remain alarmed by the widening gap between the naval and shipbuilding capabilities of the United States and the People’s Republic of China. What once was a slow, methodical buildup by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has accelerated into a rapidly growing strategic threat to U.S. maritime supremacy—both commercially and militarily. Without exaggeration, the United States is facing an urgent national security crisis.

While the U.S. rested on the laurels of its past naval dominance, China has systematically executed a comprehensive, state-directed maritime strategy that is now reshaping the global balance of naval power.

If the U.S. fails to respond with urgency and scale, we risk ceding control of the seas—and with it, the geopolitical influence that flows from maritime power.

The data is staggering. According to the April 2025 Report to Congress on Chinese Naval Modernization, China’s navy currently operates over 370 battle force ships, a number projected to grow to 435 by 2030. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is struggling to maintain around 290 ships, with ambitions—still largely unfunded—of reaching 316 by 2053. Equally alarming, China’s shipyards possess more than 230 times the shipbuilding capacity of the U.S. According to a recent report by The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), China “built more commercial vessels by tonnage in 2024 than the entire U.S. shipbuilding industry has built since the end of World War II.” You might want to read that sentence again.

But the disparity is not merely in tonnage or hulls. China’s state-supported shipbuilding industry benefits from over 150 shipyards, including eight major naval production sites capable of building large warships, aircraft carriers, and amphibious assault ships in parallel. In stark contrast, the U.S. Navy is dependent on just seven private shipyards, several of which are overburdened, outdated, and struggling with workforce shortages. Further, the Congressional Report on U.S. Navy Force Structure indicated that nearly every major U.S. shipbuilding program is behind schedule and over budget.

Meanwhile, China’s maritime ambitions have expanded beyond the Indo-Pacific. As documented in the December 2024 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, China’s global maritime reach now spans 10,000 miles beyond Taiwan, including permanent naval bases in Djibouti and increasing influence in ports across Pakistan, Cambodia, and Equatorial Guinea. The foundation of this expansion is China’s merchant fleet—the world’s largest—which can be rapidly converted to military use in a real-world shooting war. Again, by contrast, the U.S. merchant fleet has dwindled to fewer than 180 international trading ships, severely limiting sealift capacity in a contested environment.

Taken together, this paints a picture of a maritime balance that is tipping rapidly and dangerously toward Beijing. Initiatives such as President Trump’s Executive Order on Restoring Maritime Dominance and the reintroduction of the SHIPS Act signal a growing recognition of the problem, but they are insufficient in both scale and urgency. Rebuilding a competitive naval force cannot be done incrementally or through bureaucratic half-measures.

The United States must enact a modern-day Marshall Plan for shipbuilding, one rooted in the understanding that maritime supremacy is the backbone of American global power. The plan must be bold, multifaceted, and sustained. Five critical priorities stand out:

  1. Massive Industrial Investment: As proposed in the SHIPS Act, Congress must allocate $20–30 billion over the next decade to modernize and expand U.S. shipyards—revitalizing dry docks, increasing capacity, and restoring tiered supplier networks. Geographic diversification of shipyards is also critical to ensure resilience in a conflict.

  2. Workforce Development: The U.S. faces a massive shortage of skilled labor in shipbuilding. The government should launch a unified Maritime Workforce Initiative, partnering with trade schools, unions, and community colleges to train tens of thousands of welders, electricians, engineers, and naval architects.

  3. Procurement Reform: The Navy’s acquisition system must be radically—let me repeat, radically—overhauled. The complex, inefficient cost-plus contract system has made U.S. shipbuilding painfully slow and expensive. The Navy should adopt simpler, modular designs that speed up production, reduce costs, and make the fleet more adaptable.

  4. Dual-Use Shipbuilding: The U.S. should incentivize the construction of commercial ships—tankers and container vessels—at domestic yards. This will boost shipyard throughput, maintain a steady workforce, and provide an auxiliary fleet in times of war.

  5. Strategic Messaging and Public Buy-In: Maritime security is fundamental to national prosperity and defense. A public campaign, similar to the WWII-era “Victory Ship” program, could make shipbuilding a patriotic endeavor and reinvigorate public support for maritime dominance.

This is not hyperbole; the situation is dire. U.S. naval leaders have privately acknowledged a “worst-case scenario” in which the Navy may not be able to reliably contest Chinese aggression in the Western Pacific within the next five years. If the U.S. fails to act now, or fails to act boldly, we will not only lose our naval edge but forfeit our ability to shape the international order.

The oceans have always been the lifeblood of American power. In the 20th century, our shipbuilding might help win world wars and deter Soviet aggression. In the 21st century, it will determine whether we remain on the field as a superpower, or, like me, retire to the sidelines as an observer, in an era defined by Chinese maritime dominance. The time for incremental fixes is over. The clock is ticking—and only an “all-hands-on-deck” national response will suffice.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 23:20

Washington DC Dominates The US Gun-Deaths League

Washington DC Dominates The US Gun-Deaths League

Gun violence remains one of the most pressing public health issues in the United States.

But as Visual Capitalist;s Bruno Venditti shws in the following chart, according to data from USAFacts as of December 2023, gun-related deaths vary significantly across states, reflecting long-standing regional and demographic differences.

Preliminary numbers show that between January and August 2024, an estimated 30,100 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., 5% fewer than during the same period in 2023.

The rate of gun-related deaths in the U.S. has shifted over time. In the early 1990s, the rate fluctuated between 14.5 and 15.0 deaths per 100,000 people. From 2000 to 2014, however, that figure declined and remained below 10.5 deaths per 100,000.

By 2023, the rate rose again to 13.7 per 100,000—still 8% lower than its peak in 1993.

States With the Highest Gun Death Rates

Washington, DC recorded the highest rate in the country in 2023, with 28.5 deaths per 100,000 residents, more than 60% above the next highest state.

States With the Lowest Gun Death Rates

At the other end of the spectrum, several states reported significantly lower rates. Those include Hawaii, Utah, and Nebraska.

Although they receive less public attention than gun-related homicides, suicides have consistently made up the majority of gun deaths in the United States. In 2023, suicides accounted for 58% of all gun-related fatalities, totaling 27,300 deaths, according to CDC data. By comparison, 38% were classified as murders (17,927 deaths).

The U.S. has more guns than people, with nearly 400 million in civilian possession. In this map, we rank states by the highest percentage of gun ownership for adults.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 22:45

AI Is Taking Thousands Of Jobs; Is Yours At Risk?

AI Is Taking Thousands Of Jobs; Is Yours At Risk?

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

Just as the internet radically changed how America conducts business, artificial intelligence (AI) is also making waves in the workplace by taking thousands of jobs. It’s an outcome that industry experts have warned would happen, and professionals across multiple employment sectors have already been affected.

Beyond artists and content creators, AI is also impacting professionals in marketing, technology, translation, various levels of administration, and management. It has been a silent and ongoing trend for two years, but tech insiders say this is just the beginning.

A senior software engineer at Microsoft, Nandita Giri, shared her thoughts with The Epoch Times on what kind of near-term changes Americans can expect as a result of ramped-up workplace AI integration.

“AI is particularly effective at replacing routine, predictable tasks ... jobs in data entry, customer support, transcription, and logistics are the most vulnerable,” Giri said. “In software engineering, even some junior [developer] testing roles are being replaced or reshaped with AI-driven tooling. Back-office operations across health care, finance, and legal are also at high risk.”

Giri has observed a shift away from human workers in favor of AI in enterprise software development, where she said companies are quietly removing what they call “coordination overhead.” She said this is happening as AI tools become more reliable for things like task triage, scheduling, and summarization.

“AI agents have enabled a single engineer to manage what used to be a multi-person workflow, especially in automation pipelines and internal support tasks,” she said.

Restructuring Workflow

Cahyo Subroto, founder of the AI-powered data extraction platform MrScraper, agrees with this perspective.

“I’ve spent the last few years building systems that automate work, so I’ve seen firsthand where AI adds value and where it quietly pushes people out of the picture,” Subroto told The Epoch Times.

Like Giri, Subroto said that the jobs most in danger of AI replacement are those that rely heavily on structured, repetitive digital labor.

“That includes early-stage analysts, junior QA [quality assurance] testers, data entry staff, and even support roles in HR and customer service,” he said.

Subroto explained that when AI can learn workflow patterns, it can perform them faster and without the payroll cost. “At my last company, I watched a client eliminate three QA positions after switching to a tool that could auto-generate test cases and report bugs in real time.”

These decisions are based strictly on efficiency, he added. “That’s what makes this shift so difficult to stop.”

In January, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released a report that estimated 92 million jobs would be displaced by AI by 2030. The think tank surveyed more than 1,000 of the world’s largest employers, accounting for 22 industry groups and more than 14 million workers.

There is a silver lining, however. The WEF—and many others—predict that AI will also create new jobs and reshape existing positions, allowing current employees in various sectors to focus on more high-value tasks instead of routine work.

A robot sprinkles cheese over a pizza at the Institute for Artificial Intelligence of the University of Bremen, Germany, on March 8, 2017. Ingo Wagner/dpa/AFP via Getty Images

Jobs with declining demand include customer service representatives, claims adjusters, bank tellers, graphic designers, accountants, and auditors, the WEF report said.

Subroto believes much of the shift toward AI will be subtle. “Instead of replacing people, we’re restructuring the workflow to rely on AI for the mechanical parts, while humans take on broader accountability.”

“That’s a harder conversation because it’s not about job loss. It’s about job transformation, and not everyone will be equipped and ready to make that jump,” he said.

Big Changes Ahead

In May, Microsoft announced plans to lay off 3 percent of its employees across the board, affecting roughly 6,000 people. In a statement to CNBC, a spokesperson for the tech giant said, “We continue to implement organizational changes necessary to best position the company for success in a dynamic marketplace.” The spokesperson confirmed that the job cuts weren’t related to worker performance.

It’s reportedly the largest series of layoffs at Microsoft since 2023.

This arrives on the heels of reported cuts at Amazon, which in January said it would lay off what it called a “small number” of its communications and sustainability employees. It followed that by announcing in March plans to eliminate 14,000 managerial positions by early next year.

Among those who lost their job at Microsoft is former senior data scientist Tatiana Teppoeva, founder and CEO of One Nonverbal Ecosystem. She told The Epoch Times that increased tech layoffs alongside the rise of AI integration is an industry red flag.

“This has sparked genuine concerns over the future need for human programmers and signals a real, accelerating shift in how companies evaluate which human roles are essential,” Teppoeva said.

Like Giri and Subroto, Teppoeva identified industries that have a lot of unchanging, rules-based tasks like back-end software development, data entry, finance, and logistics as areas with a high probability of AI job replacement.

“The most realistic near-term disruption is task-level automation, not full job replacement,” she said. “For example, in sales, AI tools can draft outreach emails or analyze deal data, but they cannot replicate the human-to-human trust, nonverbal signals, and presence that close high-ticket deals.”

Teppoeva said the human-AI gap is now a point of focus for her business. “Helping sales teams, executives, and companies align their human communication, body language, voice, [and] nonverbal presence [is] what advanced AI tools still can’t do,” she said, then added, “At least not yet.”

On June 2, a Midwest-based web content manager for a major U.S. company—who asked to be identified only as “Tom”—was laid off with the rest of his department and most of the company’s marketing staff. Tom requested the company not be identified out of fear it could affect his severance.

Having worked in web development for more than 15 years, Tom said he saw the “AI blitz” coming and had a gut hunch it would only be a matter of time before he was made redundant.

“The worst part is the lack of honesty,” Tom said. “Companies aren’t being straight with people, they’re just saying things like ’sales are down‘ or ’we need to improve efficiency,' but the reality is it’s about increasing profit by any means.”

Tom said he has a friend who spent nearly two decades working in marketing and kept up with changing industry trends before being laid off a year ago because of AI integration.

“There are entire careers with university degrees behind them that are ending now,” Tom said.

“It’s not necessarily a one-to-one ratio,” he added. “Maybe an AI tool automates half of a department’s workload. That means you can redistribute the remaining work amongst a smaller team.”

Since the Hollywood writers’ strike in 2023, the potential for AI to disrupt careers has been under a microscope, and it’s easy to see why. Out of more than 80,000 jobs cut in May 2023, nearly 4,000 were due to AI, according to a layoffs report from the outplacement firm Challenger, Gray, and Christmas, Inc.

The trend continued last year. In 2024, the Society of Authors surveyed 12,500 workers in different creative industries, revealing many had already lost work to AI. According to the survey, 26 percent of illustrators and 36 percent of translators had already lost work because of generative AI.

Tesla co-founder Elon Musk also shared his views on AI job replacement during the Viva Technology conference in Paris in 2024, following news that Tesla planned to lay off 10 percent of its workforce.

A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the Tesla logo are seen in this image from Jan. 23, 2025. Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters

“If the computer and robot can do everything better than you, what meaning does your life have? ... In a negative scenario ... we’re in deep trouble,” Musk said.

Other tech insiders share this point of view. During an episode of “The Artificial Intelligence” show, Marketing AI Institute founder Paul Roetzer said AI is fundamentally reshaping the human workforce.

“It’s not like we’re drawing some difficult-to-find conclusion here,” Roetzer said when discussing Microsoft’s most recent layoffs. “If the CTO [chief technology officer] of the company is saying that within five years we expect 95 percent of all code to be written by AI, then what do you need a bunch of engineers for?”

Subroto used an example from his work, describing the use of AI for “task sequencing and code generation,” which allowed his company to launch features faster and fix bugs before users even saw them. However, he said the improved work efficiency came at the cost of no longer needing manual testers checking outputs line by line.

“These were smart, capable people, and yet the structure of the work changed so much that their role no longer made sense,” he said.

The current phase-out of human work roles due to increased AI efficiency is nuanced, but some don’t think it will stay that way for much longer.

A McKinsey Global Institute analysis from July 2023 predicted that 30 percent of total hours worked could be absorbed by generative AI by 2030. Researchers estimated that 11.8 million employees working in sectors with shrinking demand may need to shift into other departments, while roughly 9 million may need to change careers entirely.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 21:00

Lost To History: The Forgotten Thermonuclear Near-Disaster On Big Savage Mountain

Lost To History: The Forgotten Thermonuclear Near-Disaster On Big Savage Mountain

Six decades ago, in a near-nuclear disaster erased from public memory, a U.S. Air Force B-52D Stratofortress—carrying two thermonuclear bombs—was torn apart six miles above the Appalachian Mountains. The aircraft's vertical stabilizer snapped off mid-flight, sending the bomber into an uncontrollable dive before it slammed into Big Savage Mountain in Western Maryland. The crash marked one of the closest nuclear near-misses on U.S. soil during the Cold War.

On January 13, 1964, a B-52D Stratofortress took off from Westover Air Force Base in Massachusetts en route to Turner Air Force Base in Georgia as part of a Strategic Air Command mission called "Operation Chrome Dome." On board were five crew members and two thermonuclear bombs.

A heavily redacted USAF report on the mid-air accident of the nuclear-laden B-52D specified that a bulkhead structural failure occurred during severe turbulence that caused the vertical fin to separate. 

As the bomber broke up in mid-air, the pilot, Major Thomas McCormick, and co-pilot Captain Parker Peedin ejected and survived. However, three other crew members perished:

  • Major Robert Townley (died in the crash)

  • Tech Sgt. Melvin Wooten (died from injuries and exposure)

  • Major Robert Payne (died from exposure after ejecting)

The crash drew national attention and mobilized hundreds of local volunteers for search and rescue efforts despite dangerous blizzard conditions across the Big Savage Mountain.

In 2014, Politico interviewed Gerald Beachy of the Grantsville Community Museum, which amassed a collection of crash memorabilia and wreckage from the bomber, who said it took USAF salvage operations several days to recover the thermonuclear bombs from the remote crash site.

The incident in the remote mountains of Western Maryland has been largely erased from public memory. It occurred at the height of the Cold War—just two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis. This wasn't merely an air crash; it stands as one of the most serious nuclear weapons-related accidents on U.S. soil, even though the warheads were unarmed.

Reminders of the past are crucial as the nation braces for the 2030s—a decade in which the world is expected to fracture into a dangerous bipolar state, accelerating at an unprecedented pace.

Meanwhile, Europe is unleashing massive efforts to rebuild weapons stockpiles and scale up war readiness amid the ongoing war in Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the Trump administration is accelerating plans to expand defense capabilities and bolster hemispheric defense. The arms and technology race with China is no longer in snail mode—it's in full-blown hyperdrive, and with that comes many risks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 20:25

We Need A 'Kill Switch' On Foreign Powers Tampering With Our Electric Grid

We Need A 'Kill Switch' On Foreign Powers Tampering With Our Electric Grid

Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

It has long been acknowledged that the United States’ energy infrastructure isn’t particularly secure, a concern exacerbated by the lack of a central planning process for our nation’s piecemeal electric grid. Presidential administrations and Congress have been slow to address the problem, apparently daunted by the mere size and scope of the challenges the needed upgrades would present.

That needs to change now. The recent news that China apparently installed hidden “kill switches” in solar equipment sold to the U.S. was the latest in a long list of reasons to be concerned about our electricity infrastructure and the foolhardy rush to replace traditional energy sources with so-called “renewables” using technology that is often sourced from China.

As Reuters reported, “Rogue communication devices not listed in product documents have been found in some Chinese solar power inverters by U.S experts who strip down equipment hooked up to grids to check for security issues … Using the rogue communication devices to skirt firewalls and switch off inverters remotely, or change their settings, could destabilize power grids, damage energy infrastructure, and trigger widespread blackouts, experts said.”

As one source summarized it, “That effectively means there is a built-in way to physically destroy the grid.” Or, to put it in even simpler terms, the U.S. is purchasing Chinese equipment complete with a “kill switch” that would allow China to disable the U.S. power grid at any moment.

Even more concerning, the problem is not relegated to the United States. Britain’s GB News reported, “Chinese companies dominate the market for power inverters, with firms like Huawei and Sungrow controlling more than half the market in 2023, according to Wood Mackenzie research. The European Solar Manufacturing Council estimates that more than 200 gigawatts of European solar power capacity relies on Chinese-made inverters.” (One gigawatt is equal to one billion watts.)

As Christoph Podewils, the council’s secretary general, put it, “This means Europe has effectively surrendered remote control of a vast portion of its electricity infrastructure.”

The Chinese embassy in Washington dismissed the allegation.

The relatively sparse news coverage of this startling discovery is evidence of either the mainstream media’s complacency, or its intentional effort to downplay any development that might contradict its radical climate change narrative. Surely, this item led the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC, right? Sadly, no.

If ever there was a wakeup call regarding the urgent need for the U.S. to be even more committed to energy independence, it has arrived in the form of China’s ability to remotely turn off the U.S. power grid.

Fortunately, President Trump is working hard to reverse the Biden administration’s disastrous mandates that would have replaced affordable, reliable and increasingly clean traditional energy sources with untrustworthy and costly alternatives. Trump’s early declaration of a national energy emergency defined the dangers of relying on foreign sources of energy and spelled out several needed steps, including upgrades to our energy infrastructure.

But the added knowledge of Chinese subterfuge embedded within crucial components being installed in the U.S. electric grid adds even more urgency to the need to not only produce more domestic energy, but also to domestically develop more technology and manufacture more of the parts we currently import from outside U.S. borders.

While U.S. security experts should be lauded for discovering the Chinese “kill switches,” how many security threats have gone undetected? So-called “renewable” technologies like wind and solar were already suspect in regard to their reliability, as evidenced by the recent massive grid failure in Spain, Portugal and parts of France. We should be all the more wary of “alternatives” when the parts used to connect them to our power grids are sourced from foreign adversaries.

The episode again highlights the vital need for tougher regulations to ensure our nation’s energy security. The Empowerment Alliance’s model legislation – the Affordable, Reliable and Clean Energy Security act (ARC-ES) – would require “energy sources that are primarily produced within the U.S. and infrastructure that will reduce our reliance on foreign nations for critical materials and manufacturing.”

The time has passed for any reasonable argument suggesting that such legislation is not urgently needed, both at the federal and state levels. The notion of attacks from foreign adversaries on America’s energy infrastructure has often been the stuff of fantasy and “what-if” scenarios. Those have now been replaced with concrete evidence of nefarious, embedded components from a foreign superpower, just waiting for someone in Beijing to flip a switch and send Americans hurtling into a powerless abyss.

Let it sink in: China was secretly embedding technology in components shipped to the U.S. that could have triggered a massive power outage.

It’s time for Congress to embed a “kill switch” of its own on the ability of foreign countries to disable the U.S. power grid. That assurance can only come when we take America’s energy independence from being a worthy goal to a mandated reality.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 19:50

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner

These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner

Does your state support your 2nd Amendment rights or make it exceedingly difficult to keep and bear arms?

Here’s your chance to find out!

Ammo.com ranked the worst states for gun owners in 2025 by analyzing each state’s current laws, pending laws, concealed carry guidelines, self-defense statutes, and 2A-centric taxes.

Continue reading to see where your state stands!

Jump to a state: AL | AK | AZ | AR | CA | CO | CT | DE | FL | GA | HI | ID | IL | IN | IA | KS | KY | LA | ME | MD | MA | MI | MN | MS | MO | MT | NE | NV | NH | NJ | NM | NY | NC | ND | OH | OK | OR | PA | RI | SC | SD | TN | TX | UT | VT | VA | WA | WV | WI | WY

Report Highlights:

  • Hawaii is the #1 worst state for gun owners due to strict purchasing and carry laws, as well as defying the Supreme Court on the individual’s right to carry.

  • Massachusetts is the #2 worst state for gun owners due to its permit-to-purchase and reciprocity laws.

  • California, New York, and Illinois take the #3#4, and #5 spots in our list of worst states for gun ownership due to strict purchasing and carrying requirements.

  • Ohio, North Carolina, and Maine take spots #25#24, and #23 due to new restrictive legislation with some relaxed carry laws.

  • Some states rank worse than others due to excessive infringements, additional taxes, and the current governors’ 2A statements.

  • State and local laws defining “stand your ground” and “duty to retreat” vary, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

What Did We Measure?

Let’s take a moment to analyze which factors make a state the worst for gun ownership. If we only consider purchasing requirements, then we neglect carrying requirements and use of force thresholds. So, we came up with a list based on the following factors:

  1. Current gun laws

  2. Current purchase laws

  3. Current concealed carry weapon (CCW) guidelines

  4. Reciprocity between other states

  5. Sales tax

  6. Current governor’s voting history

  7. Stand your ground laws

Note: We are not lawyers and are not qualified to give legal advice. No information on Ammo.com is intended to be construed as legal advice. It’s essential to look at each state’s current local laws in addition to federal laws. For example, most states define “stand your ground” and “duty to retreat” differently. Explore the links below to better understand your state’s laws.

Read the full report on the Worst States to be a Gun Owner (2025 Updated) here…

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 18:05

Data Center Construction Boom Faces Local Resistance In 28 States

Data Center Construction Boom Faces Local Resistance In 28 States

Authored by John Haughley via The Epoch Times,

The need for data centers to drive 21st century cloud computing and win the AI race with China is a matter of such national urgency that Energy Secretary Chris Wright describes it as America’s “next Manhattan Project.”

But assessing how many data centers—a ubiquitous yet vague term for “server farms,” supercomputer networks, bitcoin and crypto “mines”—exist right now in the United States is, in itself, a foray into quixotic cloudy computing.

There were a “reported” 5,426 data centers in the United States in March, according to Statista.

Meanwhile, Denmark-based Data Center Map ApS counts 3,761 listed data centers in the United States. Data Centers.com, a global technology marketplace headquartered in Colorado, maintains there are 2,483 of the centers now operating nationwide.

These and other estimates confirm the consensus that the United States has five to 10 times the number of functioning data centers as any other country in the world, including China.  In fact, approximately half the planet’s data centers are in the United States, according to a ranking by Visual Capitalist.

And yet, as Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said during the April 30 Hill & Valley Forum, an annual gathering of congressional lawmakers and Silicon Valley venture capitalists, the need to build out the nation’s electric grid to power more data centers is “one of two existential threats we face as a country;” the other beingIran’s development of a nuclear weapon. If that need is not met, the nation will “lose the AI race with China.”

The projected energy demand for data centers will triple by 2028, the Department of Energy estimated last year. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation forecast the same number a year earlier.

These “load growth” assessments, coming after years of relative stagnation in electricity usage, were issued after the late-2022 advent of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. That shockwave rattled utilities, regional transmission operators, and state public utility commissions, sending them scrambling to scale-up electrical grids to accommodate this projected growth in data centers.

The result was a data center building spree. CBRE, a Texas-based commercial real estate services company, in late 2024 projected that more than 4,750 data center projects would break ground in the United States in 2025, “nearly as many … as already exist” nationwide.

New buildings to house data centers constitute “the fastest-growing segment of nonresidential construction planning,” according to a September 2024 Dodge Construction Network analysis.

However, there is no single-source registry documenting how many proposed data centers are now being reviewed before local planning boards.

That vagary was the genesis of Data Center Watch, a research firm tracking the trend and opposition to it, said founder Robert McKenzie, a former Columbia University adjunct professor of international and public affairs.

Much of the media coverage of data centers was “very specific, anecdotal” local news and social media reports, McKenzie told The Epoch Times.

“We hadn’t seen anybody pull together all the data. So we thought, ‘What would happen if you looked across the whole country?’ We weren’t sure what we were going to find.”

Data Centers.com, a global “technology marketplace” headquartered in Colorado, shows the locations of 2,483 data centers currently in operation in the United States. Illustration by The Epoch Times

In weekly updates gleaned from open-source Google searches, Data Center Watch has tracked two trends, McKenzie said, with the first being a larger number of data center proposals than initially thought.

The second trend is local opposition, which also helps track new data center projects.“There’s lots of anecdotal reporting from many, many outlets and bloggers about …local pushback here, pushback there; there’s more local opposition than certainly we would have imagined,” he said. “In other words, we keep hearing how these projects are coming, but they’re already here.”

In addition, load forecasting is difficult because many data center developers are submitting multiple proposals but only intend to build a few.At February’s National Association of Regional Utility Commissions’ Winter Energy Policy Conference, ALN Policy and Law President Angela Navarro told state public utility commissioners that utilities are seeing data center developers “cue shopping, looking for the best deal.”

Not in My Backyard

The rapid expansion of data centers is facing resistance from locals across the nation.

A March Data Center Watch report charted the emergence of at least 142 ad hoc local groups, across 28 states, “organizing to block data center construction and expansion” with $18 billion in proposed data centers “blocked” and $46 billion “delayed” between March 2023 and March 2025.

McKenzie acknowledged that the report, like Data Center Watch’s weekly updates, is an incomplete tabulation. It’s derived from “public statements or what’s happening at a town hall meeting, if there’s, like, a press release, or if there’s media coverage,” he said.

In an aerial view, an Amazon Web Services data center is seen in Stone Ridge, Va., on July 17, 2024. The United States had a reported 5,426 data centers in March 2025, a number the Energy Department projects will triple by 2028. Building data centers to power cloud computing has become a national priority as AI use soars, though the boom faces hurdles such as local opposition and power shortages. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Nonetheless, what emerges is a tip-of-iceberg indication that data center proposals are roiling communities nationwide.

“Candidly, when we did [the March report], we thought, ‘Holy smokes, $64 billion in blocked or delayed?’” he said. “That gives you a sense of how much pushback there is at the local level.”

A February survey of 800 people in “16 key states targeted for AI data center development—where OpenAI and others are exploring expansion”—found 93 percent of respondents agreed that “cutting-edge AI data centers are vital to the United States.”

But only 35 percent of those queried in the survey “would vote ‘yes’ to data center construction in their hometown” if such a proposition was presented to them.

“There is clearly a disconnect between what the local residents experience and what is being sold to these communities from developers,” survey author Joe Warnimont said.

“It’s not necessarily about opposing technology in their communities,” he told The Epoch Times.

“It’s more that people in these communities want to maintain control over resources and development, whereas that’s clearly not necessarily the case right now.”

The Data Center Watch report, HostingAdvice.com survey, and a casual Google search unspool a gamut of objections. Some are unique to specific sites in specific communities, but most cite common concerns such as demand for electricity, need for water, noise complaints, and possible devaluation of nearby property values.

Opponents generally question whether the projects will generate the jobs other uses could create. They often allege that local governments are being seduced by developers into offering tax breaks and incentives—shielded by non-disclosure agreements. Or, they report that local governments are being preempted by state legislatures that limit municipal planners from rejecting or modifying proposals.

A construction crew works on a CloudHQ data center in Ashburn, Va., on July 17, 2024. As projected data centers boom nationwide, state utility commissions are racing to expand electrical grids to meet soaring demand. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Bipartisan Backlash

The backlash against the projects is bipartisan. Locals don’t welcome data center projects despite enthusiasm for AI, making data centers the new not-in-my-back-yard flashpoint, the Data Center Watch report concluded.

“Where communities once rallied against factories, warehouses, or retail sprawl, they’re now opposing data centers,” the report states.

“From noise and water usage to power demands and property values, server farms have become a new target in the broader backlash against large-scale development. The landscape of local resistance is shifting—and data centers are squarely in the crosshairs.”

“I don’t know if [local opposition] has anything to do with political affiliation. It’s just, ‘Do I want this in my backyard or not?’” Warnimont said.

“This is absolutely across-the-aisle stuff,” Kamil Cook, a climate and clean energy associate with Public Citizen Texas, said about local opposition to data center development in the Lone Star State.

In rural Texas, that means data center opponents are typically bright red Republicans.

“Most of the groups we work with are, like, Republican-leaning people who are wanting to stop this build out,” he told The Epoch Times. “All the groups we’ve been supporting have had very close ties with their local Republican Party. It’s very local, like … the Republican county chair, for example.”

Four Waves

Data Center Coalition communications director Jon Hukill said most criticisms leveled at data center projects are standard land-use challenges, which would surface regardless of what the specific proposal was.

Hukill’s six-year-old, 36-member, Washington-based trade association represents “hyperscalers”—corporations such as Meta, AWS, and Microsoft—and “co-location” companies, such as Equinix, which own data centers leased to operators.

“I think what you’re seeing is reflective of the increasing number of states and communities where data centers are developing,” he told The Epoch Times. He noted that not only are these operations new in public perception but many are being proposed and built in “secondary” and “tertiary” markets that historically have had little industrial development.

Hukill said there have been four general waves in the evolution of data centers, which emerged in the 2000s with the growth of the internet.

The first wave, he said, was in New York and New Jersey, “because of the closeness to Wall Street—the need for very fast transactions.”

The second wave took root in California’s Silicon Valley and in northern Virginia, which is commonly referred to as “Data Center Alley” and has the world’s most dense concentration of data centers, Hukill said.

The third wave is unfolding in secondary markets, such as suburban or exurban communities in Ohio and Georgia, he said, and increasingly, in tertiary markets as well.

“Really, just in the last couple of years, we’ve seen the development of tertiary markets where there’s really been very little history of data center development whatsoever. Think of places like Mississippi, Alabama, Iowa, Indiana,” Hukill said. “This is where the opposition is coming from.”

There are numerous reasons for that development, such as less expensive land, affordable energy, water availability, and local governments eager for economic development.

“There’s been much more interest in [tertiary markets] where you’re starting to see more and more investments—you know, ‘billion with a B’-type investments—in some of those states where, typically, those were only happening in those primary markets,” Hukill said. “It’s important to understand the data center industry is not monolithic.”

Land-use attorney Colleen Gillis, founder of Reston, Va.-based Curata Partners, is a veteran of planning and zoning battles before local boards in Loudoun County and elsewhere in Data Center Alley. She’s also a member of the Urban Land Institute’s Data Center Product Council. The organization’s Local Guidelines for Data Center Development address common issues raised by developers and critics.

In an aerial view, data centers are seen near a neighborhood in Ashburn, Va., on July 17, 2024. Northern Virginia, known as “Data Center Alley,” hosts the world’s highest concentration of data centers. Nathan Howard/Getty Images

“You know,” Gillis told The Epoch Times, “some of the challenges data centers have are contextual. Where’s it located? What’s the visual or compatibility impact there?

“In some jurisdictions where, perhaps, the population growth is rapid, and traffic is a challenge, and school building or school capacity is a challenge,” Gills continued, criticism is general angst over growth and development, not necessarily specifically about data centers.

Developers have recognized that these local challenges are legitimate, she said. “It’s a little bit like AI learning. Data center companies get better at understanding what do they need to do to be a good neighbor.”

But “misconceptions” remain, Gillis said, including, “If you have a data center in Place A, the data center you put in Place B is going to be the same—the same impacts and the same challenges, the same use of water, the same use of electricity.”

Point Counter Point

The most commonly cited issues with proposed data center projects are their voracious demand for electricity and  water, resulting noise, and job generation.

Other issues, such as the tax revenues the projects generate, development incentives shielded by non-disclosure agreements, or state legislatures preempting municipal planners from rejecting proposals, are also among common issues, each meriting separate analyses.

Electricity

Fast-tracked data center development will cost ratepayers in 13 Midwest states as much as $9.4 billion beginning this year, according to Monitoring Analytics, the grid’s independent market monitor. Those 65 million consumers span 1,100 member utilities within the PJM Interconnection regional transmission organization.

According to a December 2024 Energy Department analysis, data centers consume 10 to 50 times as much energy, per square foot, as a commercial office building of similar size.

An Amazon Data Services data center campus in Pennsylvania’s Lucerne County will eventually consume the same electricity it takes to power the entire city of Pittsburgh, a senior manager at Amazon, told the Pennsylvania Capital-Star.

Goldman Sachs Research forecasts global power demand from data centers will increase 50 percent by 2027 and by as much as 165 percent by the end of the decade.

And whereas data centers consumed about 4 percent of the country’s electricity in 2023, they could account for up to 12 percent of total U.S. electricity consumption by 2028, according to a December 2024  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report.

Protect PT Executive Director Gillian Graber, whose nonprofit opposes a proposed data center project in Westmoreland County, said among reasons local residents are concerned is “the demand that data centers will bring onto the grid.”

“Pennsylvanians could see an increased cost in utilities as a result—electric and gas utilities,” she told The Epoch Times.

“The availability of power is the pacing challenge of industry, and that’s true of the data center industry, but it’s also true of all 21st century industries,” Hukill said.

“Part of the reason [to expand the grid] is because of the demand for data center services. Partially, it’s because of re-shoring and manufacturing. It’s the electrification of everything, businesses, electric vehicles, appliances. These are large loads, too.”

Many data center developers prefer renewable energies such as wind, solar, and nuclear rather than natural gas or coal, but cannot wait for small modular nuclear reactors to become widely available. They’ll go where energy is available. That’s according to Aaron Tinjum, vice president of energy policy for the Data Center Coalition, speaking during a February energy policy conference in Washington.

Many are also seeking to “co-locate” on utility power plant sites, retired coal-fired plants, or to build their own electric generators that, instead of tapping into the grid, can add capacity.

A data center owned by Amazon Web Services (front R) is under construction beside the Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Berwick, Pa., on Jan. 14, 2024. Ted Shaffrey/AP Photo

“We’ve got clients who said, ‘You know, look, it’s going to take you too long to get the power to us. We‘ll figure out self-generation between now and then [and] whatever we don’t need, we’ll sell back to you,” Gillis said.

Data centers need baseload power, Loudoun County Supervisor Mike Turner said in his influential June 2024 white paper for local planners, A Strategy for a Changing Paradigm.

Renewables aren’t sufficient for data center needs, he notes. “The average data center would require 1,000 acres of solar panels,” he said, noting the 62-turbine wind energy plant on Martha’s Vineyard would only provide enough juice to support about 10 of Loudoun County’s data centers.

Hukill cited a December 2024 analysis by Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission, which said that “Data centers are currently paying the full cost of service for the energy they use, and current rates appropriately allocate costs to the customers responsible for incurring them” without raising costs for others.

Water

Data centers consume a great deal of water to cool servers. According to a July 2024 University of Tulsa analysis, a single data center can consume up to 5 million gallons of water a day. That’s “enough to supply thousands of households or farms.”

Microsoft’s 2022 Sustainability Report showed that its data center water consumption increased 34 percent from 2021 to 2022. A Meta 2023 report said its data centers used approximately 1.29 billion gallons in 2022.

But data center technology is evolving and few “data centers 2.0 and 3.0” need that type of water use, with most recycling water and using different technologies to cool servers, Gillis said.

“A couple of years ago, all the data centers [used] evaporative cooling. That meant that they used a lot of water to cool down the data center.” Few do that now, she said.

Citing Virginia’s Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission report, Hukill said in 2023, “83 percent of data centers in Virginia used the same amount of water—or less—than the average large office building.”

However, in the same tertiary markets where energy is often available and relatively inexpensive, such as outside Phoenix, Arizona, where dozens of data center campuses were operating in December 2024, water can be scarce.

A May Bloomberg News analysis determined that two-thirds of data centers built in the United States are “in highly water-stressed areas.” About 20 percent of “rely “moderately to highly stressed watersheds” resulting from drought and other factors, Berkeley Lab research scientist Arman Shehabi wrote in 2024.

Water cooling pumps and pipes are seen at Intergate.Manhattan, a data center owned by Sabey Data Center Properties, in the lower Manhattan area in New York on March 20, 2013. The vast water use of data centers is one of the top concerns for proposed projects nationwide, along with their heavy power demand, noise, and limited job creation. Stan Honda/AFP via Getty Images

Data center water-use can be a factor even in areas with abundant water resources, such as western Pennsylvania.

“In addition to your typical site location, noise, light pollution, those kind of things, water usage is a big concern,” Graber said. “These data centers will be run by gas-fired power plants, and gas-fired power plants need gas, and we already have a tremendous amount of water usage from the fracking industry on our local resources.”

In Pennsylvania’s Westmoreland County, Beaver Run Reservoir, a major regional source of drinking water, was affected by extended periods of drought  “at least two years in a row,” Graber said. Meanwhile, “fracking companies were still withdrawing our water. So while every day Pennsylvanians were asked to conserve water, the fracking industry was still taking the water.”

Water used to cool data center servers can be used for “other things like golf courses.”  It eventually finds its way back into creeks and streams and is processed through the water cycle, Graber said.

However, water used to frack the gas that fuels data centers “has to be put into injection wells. It can’t be cleaned to the point where it’s going to be used for human consumption and, so, it completely takes this water out of the water table.”

Noise

Generators, HVAC cooling systems, and drawing power from energy from the grid can produce a buzz “comparable to the noise of a lawnmower or a busy city street.” At up to 96 decibels that could lead to hearing loss at sustained exposure, according to a Sensear study.

But again, as a Data Center Knowledge primer points out, noise complaints from nearby residents have prompted adjustments such as “mufflers” and “dampeners” to keep noise levels off-site down.

Data centers are actually “quieter than many common sounds—jets, lawn-mowers, conversations at three feet,” Hukill said. Data center sound “is not harmful to human hearing, and is rarely loud enough to violate noise ordinances,” he said, adding, “A large majority of data centers do not generate noise complaints.”

That claim is documented in the Virginia Legislature analysis, he said. “There are now sound dampeners. If a community says that the chilling units that sit on top of a data center [are] maybe too loud, data center companies have worked to put in sound dampeners to reduce that noise.”

Server banks inside a data center at AEP headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, on May 20. John Minchillo/AP Photo

Job Generation

According to Area Development Magazine, building a typical data center creates hundreds of jobs for skilled trades such as electricians and engineers. But long-term, on-site employment generated by data centers is generally lower than that of other industries like manufacturing or corporate headquarters, according to an August 2024 Pro Publica report.

The report noted that “data centers employ relatively few people on a permanent basis. Overseeing the servers doesn’t take much labor compared with other large industrial outfits, and the facilities are easy to distinguish from other hulking manufacturing buildings because of their small or mostly empty parking lots.”

The relatively few jobs—some describe data centers as “one job for every two acres occupied”—was a recurring criticism in the HostingAdvice.com survey, Warnimont said.

“I would definitely agree” that’s among the biggest reasons why people oppose them, he said, noting that many people say, “If it brings a ton of jobs …  maybe I would like it. But if not, maybe not.”

However, the lack of job creation surrounding data centers “is a common misperception,” Hukill said, pointing to a February PriceWaterhouseCoopers report.  The report determined that between 2017 and 2023, “the data center industry supported up to 4.7 million jobs across the country,” with each direct data center job supporting “more than six jobs elsewhere” in the United States.

“There might be this common conception out there that if you go to an average data center, it may have 50, maybe 100, full-time badged employees,” he said. “But those numbers really don’t capture the scope of the number of jobs that are supporting that data center.”

For instance, Hukill said, a co-location or “colo” data center that leases space to computer network operators, similar to the way a retail shopping works, adds another layer of employees who manage and maintain the property.

In that situation, in addition to employees of the company that owns the building, you have “all the other tenants, employees that are technical workers and high-tech workers that keep the servers running,” he said. Those employees are “typically not counted” in many employment counts.

Transparency

Objections may vary from proposal to proposal and site to site. But a common claim is that state and local governments offer data center projects tax incentives, often shielded from public scrutiny through non-disclosure agreements under the guise of proprietary corporate intelligence.

The lack of transparency fosters suspicion and anger, Cook said. “Just from our experience, it seems like one of the big concerns is that, yeah, there is no community outreach.”

He added, “There’s no method by which the community can be informed in a way that actually makes it seem like their voice is valued and that they have a choice in these matters.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 17:30

Where Are We Now?

Where Are We Now?

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities (full pdf available here)

Just last weekend, we discussed Confusion versus Uncertainty. We have a long list of potential market moving-events, many of which might be at pivotal moments.

  • The Big Beautiful Bill. Not letting tax cuts expire is crucial. Additional targeted tax cuts would also be helpful – especially anything that would drive growth and innovation.
     
    • The new “twist” here was the apparent falling out, played out via social media, between President Trump and Elon Musk. It seems to have quieted down, which is a good thing. While we are correct to worry about the deficit, at this point in time, moving the bill along seems more important. Will Thursday’s “social media storm” be a one-time event, or do we need to think about potential ramifications for the Trump agenda without Musk’s support? I don’t think so, but it is a concern.
       
  • Tariffs.
     
    • With July 8th approaching rather quickly, and only the U.K. deal signed, it seems unlikely that many more fully done deals will be inked before the deadline. On the other hand, the market is pricing in a “worst” case of extensions on the pause. We get some deals announced with a few countries and we get a pause extension on countries where there has been some initial negotiating. That seems reasonable for the markets to assume, given everything that has gone on.
       
    • A deal with China seems to have become the top priority.
       
      • The Geneva Deal doesn’t seem to be working as either side expected.
      • The President is apparently getting directly involved with Xi, which is what the President wanted all along, though I’m not sure that is the best approach, given China has known this all along.
      • We fully expected the administration to try to isolate China. We were wrong. While it is encouraging to see how the policy is being portrayed, there is a real concern, especially amongst the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, that we might not get the international cooperation against China that many think is necessary for the plan to succeed.
      • Short-term wins versus longer-term risks. If the purpose of the deal is to buy time to prepare for more separation, then we have to structure the deal very carefully. China has the resources and global integration to also work aggressively during any “cooling off” period. Protecting IP and National Security Interests should remain an integral part of any deal. There is a real struggle on this front between short-term and longer-term needs.
      • The processing of rare earths and critical minerals. The one “card” that China seems to have immense control over is the processed/refined rare earths and critical minerals. While Greenland and Ukraine might help get access to these raw materials (though we don’t see that as the major problem), they don’t do much for us in terms of processing/refining where China continues to dominate the market. We don’t know just how big of a card this is (quite large if they are actually willing to use it broadly for an extended period), but getting these businesses up and running domestically should be the biggest priority of the admin once Budget 2025 is passed. It still would have made sense, according to the GIG, to also include close allies in this crucial supply chain, but that ship may have sailed.
         
    • Are tariffs tools to negotiate, there to generate revenue, or designed to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.? Recently Japan cited some uncertainty, from their perspective (on the U.S. side) regarding what the goal is.
       
      • It seems reasonable to expect that after the Big Beautiful Bill is passed (I’m assuming that it will be passed), we will get more clarity on the direction the admin is headed in on tariffs. The President, even working almost 24/7, can only focus on so much, so getting the budget passed is likely taking his attention away from other things (and the bizarre “feud” on Thursday certainly doesn’t help). We should also learn whether the revenue was an artifice to pull in some votes to get approval for the bill (arguing that tariff revenues will offset some costs, until growth kicks in). The “revenue” side of tariffs might be less important after the bill gets passed. On the other hand, maybe the administration doesn’t want to “upset the apple cart” and risk not getting the bill passed? So, after the bill is passed, will we go back to being more aggressive on tariffs?


        This chart might be a bit simplistic (data centers and AI still play a huge role in the movements of the market, but it isn’t too far off).
         
  • National Production for National Security. If that has the sound of something that might have been said in a Communist country, I’m okay with it. Prioritizing what is needed and pushing the agenda as aggressively as possible is key for our success and ability to compete with China down the road. Subsidies would help, but they don’t seem to be on the agenda with the urgency many of our National Security experts think is needed. On the other hand, deregulation is also a crucial step and that is something we have argued, since day 1, that Trump has specialized in. Why he didn’t start with deregulation and fighting NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) is a question I would love to have answered (the chart above would look a LOT different if the admin had come out of the gates focused on this front rather than tariffs). Treasury Secretary Bessent talks about this as being one of the “legs of the stool” and the more we turn our attention to this, the better. While it is also designed to take jobs away from elsewhere and bring them to the U.S., it seems less aggressive than using tariffs and is far more in our own control.
     
  • When, or if, will the impact of existing tariffs, policy uncertainty, or even confusion hit the economic data and the markets? We discuss this in our NFP Reaction, and remain convinced that the market, at these levels, has become too complacent with risks on the economic front. While backing off on tariffs has been great, and has greatly reduced the risk of recession, that is still a risk as the global economy takes time to adjust to the level of uncertainty (and even confusion) that has been set in motion since Inauguration Day. I completely believe the worst is behind us on the tariff headlines, but the impact has not been felt in the real world, and while 10% (or just higher) is “manageable,” there are likely going to be costs.
     
  • Peace. While we argued peace in a short timeframe was achievable (peace in a single day seemed impossible), that has stalled, at least in Russia. We published a Drone Attack SITREP on Monday. The mix of carrots and sticks was confusing to many of the GIG members, and maybe it is surprising we are here. The geopolitical situation is different than the economic situation, but if I had to be cautious about something right now – it is the growing difference between how confidently the President predicted peace, and where we are now. It is “different” than tariffs with China, right? Maybe not?
Bottom Line

I still like rates. Friday’s move could have pushed the Fed’s second cut out to next year, while, for me, the jobs data solidified the chance of a July cut, with 3 to 4 for the year. 10s back to 4.5% is a buying opportunity, though a range of 4.2% to 4.6% seems about right. A bit of a wide range, but the volatility around so many of the topics listed above, especially the bill, still needs to be considered.

Credit boring. Crypto exciting.

Credit, which I think I understand, should do okay here. So far the calendar hasn’t slowed much, but credit has held in very well. Across the globe, anyone looking for corporate credit risk needs to come to the U.S. as the market is the only place big enough to offer diversification across industries, ratings, and maturities. Also, the companies issuing corporate debt are often global in nature, so the exposure isn’t confined to the U.S.

On Crypto, I don’t understand the rush for governments to get involved, but it seems that is the trajectory we are on. So long as corporations can add crypto to their balance sheets and see their stock valuations rise more than the amount of crypto they bought, I can understand why they would do that. However, I cannot understand that relationship, which is driving the process. I do understand anxiety around FX globally and deficits globally, but I’m still not sure how that translates into owing crypto – but certainly I am more tempted to jump back on the bandwagon than fight it here.

Equities. Maybe not “priced to perfection” but getting close. When we examine the list of risks, uncertainties, or even things to be confused about, the market seems positioned to the optimistic side. That could be proven correct, but the risk/reward has definitely shifted with the recent legs of this rally (China, chips, and deficit spending). The IPO market is wide open and that could be a big benefit not just to markets, but also for the economy as new and innovative companies are brought to the forefront of daily market headlines!

It has been great being on the road a lot (on the road again this week) and talking to so many of our clients, colleagues, and members of the Geopolitical Intelligence Group.

  • There is a decent amount of concern about small and midsize businesses, especially related to tariffs.
  • A blind faith that the consumer keeps consuming (which has been the correct call).
  • A more optimistic outlook for dealing with China from most people, than generally expressed by our Geopolitical Intelligence Group. We had a great outing with two GIG colleagues from the CIA last week, demonstrating how we are moving deeper into national security and policy.

Today, I just wanted to conclude by thanking all of those who take time out of their hectic schedules to meet with, talk to, or even just respond to Academy Securities as it helps us grow and get better!

If we go back to today’s question “Where are We Now?” the answer is at some pivotal moments for some major drivers to kick into gear, or stumble, as they near the goal line.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:50

Chinese-Owned Firm Halts Construction On Battery Plant In America's EV Heartland

Chinese-Owned Firm Halts Construction On Battery Plant In America's EV Heartland

Chinese-owned AESC has halted construction of its $1.6 billion battery plant in America's emerging "Battery Belt," citing economic uncertainty tied to President Trump's trade war and tariffs and the potential early termination of federal clean energy subsidies.

Construction of AESC's electric-vehicle battery plant in Florence, South Carolina, began in 2023 after securing a deal with BMW to make battery cells. 

On Thursday, the company sent a letter to employees regarding the construction halt, as obtained by The Wall Street Journal. The letter laid out:

  • Tariffs on Chinese-made machinery, steel, and aluminum, which significantly raise costs.

  • A proposed tax bill in Congress that would end EV battery production subsidies early and restrict eligibility for China-linked companies.

  • Broader industry pressure as automakers slow or cancel EV rollouts.

"Our intent is to finish construction of the facility once stability and predictability have returned to the market," Knudt Flor, AESC's chief executive for the U.S. and Europe, wrote in the memo.

Current and former employees told WSJ that construction of the building has been completed, but all work on installing equipment and battery cell assembly lines has been halted.

Sources noted that AESC would face steep tariffs on EV battery machinery imported from China and said that recent steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have further compounded the company's cost challenges.

In recent years, Biden-era green energy policies fueled a surge in battery factory construction across parts of the Midwest and Southeast, driven by cheap land, proximity to major automotive hubs, and generous state-level incentives. This region—stretching from Tennessee and Alabama to the Carolinas, Ohio, and Michigan—has become known as America's "Battery Belt."

Some major projects across the belt include:

  • Ford and SK On: $11.4B battery and EV campuses in Tennessee and Kentucky

  • LG Energy Solution: Multiple joint ventures with GM, Stellantis, and Honda in Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana

  • Hyundai and SK: $5B EV battery plant in Georgia

  • Toyota: Expanding EV battery production in North Carolina

"Now many of those subsidies are being targeted by Republicans at the same time regulations and tax credits aimed at driving EV sales are also at risk," WSJ noted, adding, "The current version of a tax bill before Congress would end EV battery production subsidies a year early and make them unavailable to companies with ties to certain countries, including China."

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:15

Billions Spent On Data Centers - But Where Is The AI Adoption Rate?

Billions Spent On Data Centers - But Where Is The AI Adoption Rate?

This week, readers were given fresh insights from UBS (read: here & here), highlighting the explosive surge in data center investments. As we've noted before, one asset manager—backing a multi-billion-dollar AI data center project in Texas—described to us the current AI infrastructure buildout as a multi-year "sprint."

With hundreds of billions pouring into data center development—concentrated in Texas and the Heartland due to cheap land and reliable power—investors should be asking one critical question: how fast is AI adoption scaling across corporate America?

According to Goldman Sachs' latest AI Adoption Tracker for Q2 2025, the enterprise implementation of AI continues to expand, particularly across sectors most vulnerable to automation. At the same time, productivity gains are becoming more measurable, even as AI-related layoffs have yet to materialize. 

Analysts Jan Hatzius, Joseph Briggs, and others offered clients a clear snapshot of the current AI investment tsunami:

AI-related investment growth remains strong, particularly for semiconductor firms, where equity analysts expect revenue growth of 36% from current levels by the end of 2026. Since the release of ChatGPT, analysts have upgraded their end-2025 revenue projections for semiconductors by $200bn (0.7% of US GDP) and AI hardware enablers by $105bn (0.4%).

As for the AI adoption rate, analysts found that as of May, approximately 9.2% of U.S. firms reported using AI in the production of goods or services—up from 7.4% in 4Q24. 

The most significant quarter-over-quarter gains occurred in the education, information, finance, and professional services sectors.

"Large firms with 250+ employees continue to report the highest adoption rate (14.9%) while medium-sized firms with 100-249 employees reported the largest expected increase in adoption over the next 6 months (+4.7pp to 14.6%). Adoption rates have also accelerated among medium-sized firms with 150-249 employees," the analysts said. 

Certain subsectors—especially in computing, web hosting, and telecom—are seeing adoption rates exceed 30%. Broadcasting and telecommunications firms anticipate the largest adoption gains through the rest of 2025.

Given the increasing AI adoption rate, the analysts noted that AI's impact on employment metrics has been marginal:

AI's impact on the labor market remains limited and there is no sign of a significant impact on most labor market outcomes. AI-related job openings now account for 24% of all IT job openings and 1.5% of all job postings. AI has not been mentioned in major corporate layoff announcements in recent months and the unemployment rate for AI-exposed positions has reconciled with the broader unemployment rate.

However... 

We continue to observe large impacts on labor productivity in the limited areas where generative AI has been deployed. Academic studies imply a 23% average uplift to productivity, while company anecdotes imply similar efficiency gains of around 29%.

Here's what companies and trade organizations are saying about current and future AI adoption...

Ultimately, investors will need to see AI adoption across corporate America continue to climb in order to justify the massive infrastructure buildout.

The looming question now is: At what point does rising adoption trigger a wave of AI-driven layoffs?

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 12:15

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Limits On Florida Drag Show, Including No Minors Rule

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Limits On Florida Drag Show, Including No Minors Rule

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court has ruled that the city of Naples, Florida, can lawfully require a drag performance at this weekend’s Pride Fest event to be held indoors and restricted to adult audiences.

In a split June 6 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking local restrictions. The court found that Naples Pride, the nonprofit organizing the event, had waited too long to challenge the conditions after accepting the same terms in 2023 and 2024.

The majority concluded that the city’s decision to impose the restrictions was not based on the group’s viewpoint, but rather on public safety concerns. The judges also held that the performance venue—a city park—constitutes a “limited public forum,” where speech protections under the First Amendment are subject to greater regulation.

The court added that the performance could still go forward under the same conditions as in previous years—indoors and adults-only—and that the city had a strong argument that its rules were reasonable and viewpoint-neutral.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Nancy Abudu criticized the majority’s reasoning, arguing that the city’s restrictions were “undeniably viewpoint and content-based” and thus unconstitutional, regardless of whether the park is viewed as a traditional or limited public forum.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge John Steele issued a preliminary injunction barring Naples from enforcing the indoor and age-restriction requirements. That ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in April by the ACLU of Florida on behalf of Naples Pride, alleging violations of constitutional free speech rights.

Reacting to the 11th Circuit’s reversal, the ACLU of Florida called the decision “disappointing” and vowed to continue the legal fight. Naples Pride likewise criticized the ruling, but said it would comply with the restrictions, for now.

“We respect the rule of law and will comply with the restrictions—but we won’t pretend this is justice,” Callhan Soldavini, board member and corporate counsel for Naples Pride, said in a statement. “Righting the wrongs of injustice takes time, but make no mistake: we will keep fighting.”

The case now returns to the lower court, where Naples Pride’s claims for damages will proceed.

In response to the ruling, the Naples Police Department said on June 6 that the police would be on-site during the event to ensure public safety.

“As a result, the City may continue enforcing its event ordinance while the case proceeds,” the department said in a post on social media. “We remain committed to protecting public safety, upholding constitutional rights, and ensuring the safe use of public spaces.”

Meanwhile, the same court of appeals ruled in mid-May that a Florida restaurant known for hosting drag shows could continue hosting the performances pending further litigation in a case that challenges enforcement of the state’s Protection of Children Act.

The law prohibits the admission of children into live performances that Florida considers obscene for minors. However, the court found that the restrictions in the act were too vague as they applied to the shows held at the restaurant.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 11:40

Musk Hit Bessent 'Like A Rugby Player' In White House Fight, Bannon Claims

Musk Hit Bessent 'Like A Rugby Player' In White House Fight, Bannon Claims

Long-simmering tensions between Elon Musk and other members of the Trump administration exploded into physical violence in mid-April, with Musk aggressively shouldering Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Bessent battling back, according to a second-hand account from Trump political advisor and Musk-despiser Steve Bannon. First reported by the Washington Post on Saturday, Bannon's tale comes amid a raging battle between Trump and Musk that's left Trump saying he has no desire to patch things up and assumes their relationship -- which by all accounts played a decisive role in Trump's return to power -- is over.  

The alleged fight between Musk and Bessent erupted after an Oval Office discussion over who should be the IRS acting commissioner (Reuters)

Citing what he'd been told by others, Bannon said the two rivals had been with Trump in the Oval Office to pitching their respective preferred picks for the role of acting IRS commissioner. According to earlier reporting by the New York Times, Bessent was irate that Musk had managed to go around him and install Gary Shapley in the role, despite the fact that the IRS reports to the Treasury Department. Bessent told Trump he wanted Deputy Treasury Secretary Michael Faulkender in the slot -- and Trump agreed, capping a chaotic spectacle that saw the IRS overseen by three different acting commissioners in a single week. 

As they left the office and headed down a West Wing hallway, Bessent and Musk started insulting each other, Bannon said, with Bessent ridiculing Musk for claiming he would identify over a trillion dollars in government waste, fraud and abuse, with Bessent apparently claiming Musk was coming nowhere close: "You’re a fraud. You’re a total fraud!" 

That line of attack allegedly prompted Musk to slam his shoulder into Bessent's ribs, hitting him hard "like a rugby player," said Bannon. The Treasury secretary physically retaliated in some manner, before multiple bystanders outside the national security adviser's office intervened to break up the fight. Musk was then supposedly escorted from the West Wing. “President Trump heard about it and said, ‘This is too much’,” Bannon said. In the following days, Musk announced that he would start easing back from his role in the administration to give more attention to his many businesses.  

Bannon's gossipy, second-hand account in the Washington Post's decidedly Musk-hostile report came two days after the told the New York Times that he was pushing to have Musk deported. “They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately,” Bannon said, adding that he also told Trump to pursue a narcotics investigation against Musk

According to the Post, the Musk-Bessent fight was just one of many manifestations of friction between the world's richest man and others in the administration who resented his "move fast and break things" approach and the influence he wielded not as a Senate-confirmed cabinet member but as a mere "special government employee." Musk was seen as failing to stay in his ill-defined lane, with no better example than his bypassing of cabinet members by issuing direct, emailed commands to nearly every employee in the federal government: 

The first signs of trouble emerged in February, when an email landed in inboxes throughout the government directing federal employees to describe their five accomplishments over the past week. Cabinet officials and other agency leaders weren’t given advance notice of the memo, causing consternation at the highest levels of Trump’s administration.

This week's massive meltdown in the Trump-Musk relationship started when Musk lashed out against the "Big Beautiful Bill," calling Trump's cornerstone legislation a "disgusting abomination" and heaping scorn on House members who voted for it (Kentucky's Thomas Massie and Ohio's Warren Davidson were the sole GOP "no" votes).   

Things quickly went downhill, with Trump threatening to kill Musk's SpaceX and Starlink contracts, only to have Musk announce he was immediately decommissioning SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which NASA relies on to transport supplies and crew members to the International Space Station (he later eased back on that threat.) Musk also backed a suggestion that Trump be impeached, and said "the real reason [the Epstein files] have not been made public" is that Trump is in them

For now, the outright hostilities have eased, but there's little reason to think the Trump-Musk relationship will be meaningfully restored. As an unnamed administration ally close to the Trump and Musk camps told the Post, "There’s hope that there’s going to be a reconciliation. But it’ll never be the same.” 

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/08/2025 - 11:05

Pages