President Trump issued a warning to France and Europe this morning on Truth Social, stating: “Numerous European Countries have been discussing the imminent implementation of a Digital Services Tax on American Companies. Some of these Countries are close to actually doing this. 

Please let this statement serve to represent that any Country that imposes such a Tax will immediately be met with a 100% TARIFF on any and all Goods sent to the United States of America.”

This builds directly on the President’s long-standing commitment to ensuring other countries pay their fair share. In an exclusive June 15 interview with the New York Post, Trump recounted telling French leaders he had no choice but to respond forcefully if they continued targeting U.S. tech firms. “I asked him not to charge American companies, and if they do, I have no choice but to charge a 100% tariff on all champagnes and all wines coming out of France,” he said. He added that all Macron had to do was get rid of the sales tax (the digital levy), and he wouldn’t have that kind of pressure.

Trump has issued strong warnings on the issue before. He previously threatened 200% tariffs on wine and related products from the European Union in January of this year and March of last year. With courts having struck down certain prior tariff measures, he has now escalated to a blanket 100% threat against any country imposing digital services taxes, explicitly including France.

Importantly, this latest warning connects the tariffs to broader trade negotiations, making clear that no agreements will shield countries from retaliation if they impose digital services taxes.  This aligns with his August 25, 2025 Truth Social post, in which he placed countries imposing digital taxes “on notice” of “substantial additional Tariffs” on their exports to the U.S., along with potential restrictions on American tech and chips, unless they dropped the discriminatory rules.

These taxes are in place in countries such as France, Britain, Italy, and Spain, among others. These levies typically target online advertising, apps, and user data.

Many have described the taxes as a way to make Big Tech pay its fair share. 

President Trump has long regarded these taxes on American social media platform companies as unfair attacks on U.S. innovation and success, punishing companies built through American risk-taking and ingenuity.

His strategy embodies a business-oriented America First framework, using tariffs on cars, wine, luxury goods, and other imports to drive policy changes and push back against what he calls economic bullying.

The Commander in Chief has successfully used tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese goods to secure better deals and protect domestic industries. For example, Section 232 steel tariffs rose from the original 25% (imposed in 2018 and reinstated at 25% in early 2025) to 50% on most imports by June 2025, while aluminum tariffs increased from 10% to 25% and then to 50%.

Here, however, the objective is to safeguard the U.S. tech sector, a vital employer, an engine of growth, innovation, and exports. U.S. tech companies have spent years navigating fragmented foreign rules and rising compliance costs, and many in Silicon Valley quietly support this firm stance.

These decisive actions aim to protect American jobs, encourage American progress and deliver fairer trade. 

Strong negotiations typically yield better agreements rather than full-blown trade wars, ultimately strengthening the economy and prosperity for American families.

Early results are already evident. Canada rescinded its planned digital services tax after U.S. pressure linked it to broader trade talks, demonstrating how direct leverage can influence leaders concerned about their exporters.

European officials have pushed back, defending the taxes as essential for their digital economies. A new tariff threat could nevertheless complicate ongoing U.S.-Europe discussions.

Trump’s goal has been to prioritize American interests above all else. With courts striking down key tariff measures, it is not surprising that he has pursued other avenues to recoup revenues owed to the United States.

American companies dominate global digital innovation, and this latest commitment places technology at the center of global trade disputes. How nations respond, whether by easing taxes, negotiating exemptions, or holding firm, will define the operating environment for American tech platforms for years to come. The move exemplifies Trump’s signature, Art of the Deal approach, demonstrating his willingness to deploy every available tool to prevent the playing field from tilting against U.S. companies.

At the end of May 2026, the United States solidified its position as the world’s largest oil exporter, shipping approximately 10.5 million barrels per day of crude and refined products, surpassing Russia and Saudi Arabia for the third consecutive month. This is a historic energy dominance and reversal of decades-old global supply dynamics, building on the U.S. becoming a net petroleum exporter in 2026 for the first time since at least 1949.

Yet many Americans continue to feel the price at the pump. While crude prices have fallen sharply, gasoline prices remain elevated, roughly .30 to .50 cents higher than they would be under normal circumstances as pre-conflict levels gradually return.

President Donald J. Trump has directed the Department of Justice to investigate major oil companies for alleged price gouging at the gas pump. Specifically calling out firms like ExxonMobil and Chevron, stating that oil prices are “dropping like a rock” while gasoline prices remain stubbornly high.

The move comes even as global oil prices have dropped substantially in recent weeks.  President Trump is leveraging America’s historic energy dominance with bold steps to deliver real relief at the pump for American families.

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude has fallen more than 30% from recent wartime peaks to around $70 per barrel, following the mid-June U.S.-Iran agreement that reopened the Strait of Hormuz and significantly eased global supply concerns.

Despite this drop in price, the U.S. average gasoline price stood at about $3.93 per gallon as of Wednesday, down 14% from recent highs but still well above January’s $2.76 level.

President Trump’s actions include the ongoing release of millions of barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, authorized earlier this year, and his prediction that gasoline prices could fall significantly, potentially toward the low $2 range, as lower crude costs flow through to consumers.

Oil refinement is a time-intensive process. Often, the gasoline pumped into our vehicles at the end of the month was refined weeks earlier, meaning retail prices frequently lag behind shifts in global crude markets.

It is widely expected that oil and gasoline prices will continue declining toward pre-Iran conflict levels in the coming weeks and months.

Some have reported, seasonal demand, hurricane risks, and lingering geopolitical uncertainties could cap how far prices fall.

Market reactions have been mixed. Energy stocks dipped on news of the probe and reserve activity, while analysts anticipate modest further declines in gasoline prices as lower crude works through the system. 

Trump is moving on promises to protect consumers and harness America’s energy dominance, and the U.S. has been the world’s top oil exporter since May 2026. 

Hawaii’s infamous “vampire rule” just got staked by the Supreme Court.

In the second major 6-3 ruling on June 25, 2026, Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Wolford v. Lopez (24-1046), striking down Hawaii’s 2023 law that required licensed concealed-carry permit holders to obtain explicit permission from property owners before bringing firearms into stores, hotels, shopping malls, gas stations, and other private properties open to the public.

The Supreme Court ruled that this presumptive ban, which treated armed citizens like vampires who needed a personal invitation before crossing the threshold, violates the Second Amendment. 

Building squarely on the 2022 Bruen decision, the conservative majority held that Hawaii’s creative “default prohibition” lacked historical analogs and improperly burdened the core right to self-defense outside the home.

As Justice Alito wrote: “This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.”

Challengers, including Maui gun owners Jason Wolford et al. and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, argued that the presumption against carry on public-access private property lacked sufficient historical analogs and improperly burdened the core right to self-defense outside the home.

Hawaii defended the law as protecting private property rights, asserting that an invitation to shop or stay does not automatically include permission to carry a gun. 

The state passed the measure after Bruen expanded concealed-carry permits, aiming to let businesses and owners control weapons on their premises. Lower courts had largely upheld it before the Supreme Court intervened.

The majority, consisting of the six Republican-appointed justices, viewed the regulation as impermissibly relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, among others, drew comparisons to First Amendment protections, noting that governments cannot easily flip defaults to burden fundamental rights without clear historical support.

This decision does not affect Hawaii’s other gun restrictions, such as bans in parks, beaches, or alcohol-serving establishments. Owners can still prohibit guns by posting clear “no firearms” signs or communicating restrictions, preserving their ability to opt out.

Gun rights advocates are rightfully calling it a decisive victory, hailing the ruling as a significant victory that prevents states from undermining Bruen through creative default rules. It clarifies that licensed carriers generally enjoy the right to enter businesses open to the public while armed, unless owners actively object. 

SCOTUS made it clear the Second Amendment doesn’t disappear when you walk into everyday public places.

The Trump administration supported the challengers, arguing the law was pretextual and targeted Second Amendment rights. Legal experts expect the decision to influence similar cases in other states. 

History reminds us that civilization often hinges on narrow passages; the Bosporus, the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal. At the top of that list sits the Strait of Hormuz, a 21-mile-wide chokepoint through which roughly one fifth of the world’s seaborne oil and vast quantities of liquefied natural gas flow. This is not just another shipping lane; it is the global economy’s jugular.

That is precisely why Iran’s latest drone strike against a Singapore-flagged cargo vessel should concern every American, whether they follow foreign policy or not. According to U.S. officials, the attack was carried out by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as the vessel exited the Strait of Hormuz near Oman. The drone damaged the ship’s bridge, fortunately causing no reported injuries or loss of life. The absence of casualties, however, should not obscure the gravity of what occurred. A commercial vessel engaged in lawful international commerce became the target of an armed attack in one of the world’s most strategically significant waterways.

President Donald Trump correctly described the incident as a “foolish violation” of the recently negotiated ceasefire and maritime agreement that had been painstakingly assembled to reduce tensions, reopen shipping lanes, and restore stability after months of conflict. Those negotiations were never simply about diplomacy. They were about restoring confidence that international commerce could once again flow freely through a vital maritime choke point. Iran’s actions now place that fragile understanding in jeopardy.

The significance of this event extends far beyond the region. Stability in Hormuz directly influences energy prices and, by extension, inflation, transportation costs, and the price of everyday goods. Even with increased domestic production, the United States remains tied to global energy markets, meaning disruptions or even perceived threats can quickly ripple through supply chains, financial markets, and household budgets.

That is why financial markets watch the Strait of Hormuz with extraordinary intensity. Even the threat of disruption can drive up shipping insurance, alter trade routes, and trigger volatility that ultimately raises costs for consumers.

Iran understands this dynamic perfectly. For decades, the leadership in Tehran has recognized that while it cannot compete conventionally with the United States Navy, it possesses one uniquely powerful form of leverage: geography. Iran occupies much of the northern coastline overlooking the Strait of Hormuz. From missile batteries, drones, naval mines, fast attack craft, submarines, and proxy forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has built an asymmetric strategy designed not necessarily to defeat superior military forces outright, but to create enough uncertainty that global commerce slows, insurance rates soar, and political pressure mounts on Western governments.

This strategy has evolved over decades. Rather than confronting American naval superiority head-on, Iran has consistently invested in capabilities intended to impose economic pain disproportionate to the cost of the attack itself. A relatively inexpensive drone capable of damaging a commercial vessel can trigger billions of dollars in market volatility. That is strategic leverage of the highest order.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps deserves special attention because it is not simply another branch of Iran’s military establishment. It functions simultaneously as a military organization, intelligence service, economic empire, ideological enforcement arm, and exporter of revolutionary influence throughout the Middle East. Its fingerprints have appeared repeatedly across regional conflicts through support for proxy organizations, maritime harassment, missile development, cyber operations, and unconventional warfare. The IRGC exists not merely to defend Iran’s borders but to project the revolutionary ideology born in 1979 far beyond them.

That ideology is fundamentally different from traditional statecraft. Most governments seek stability because stability encourages prosperity. Revolutionary regimes often perceive instability itself as a strategic asset. Chaos weakens adversaries, raises the costs of resistance, and creates opportunities to expand influence. That difference explains why seemingly irrational actions often make perfect sense when viewed through the ideological lens of revolutionary governments.

The latest attack also reveals something else that policymakers should not ignore. Agreements reached on paper remain only as durable as the willingness of both parties to honor them. Diplomacy has value, but diplomacy unsupported by credible deterrence eventually becomes little more than hopeful rhetoric. International commerce depends upon confidence that agreements will be enforced and violations will carry meaningful consequences.

President Trump’s criticism reflects precisely this concern. The administration’s objective has been to reopen commercial navigation while preventing the region from descending into another prolonged military confrontation. That objective requires all participants to recognize that attacks on commercial shipping undermine not merely bilateral relations but the broader stability of the international trading system itself.

The broader implications extend well beyond the Middle East. America remains the indispensable guarantor of freedom of navigation across the world’s oceans. Since the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States Navy has protected the sea lanes upon which global commerce depends. This mission rarely dominates headlines because success appears uneventful. Ships travel safely. Energy flows uninterrupted. Goods arrive on schedule. Consumers rarely consider the immense military infrastructure that quietly preserves this stability every single day.

Only when that stability is challenged does the public recognize its enormous value. The lesson is timeless. Sea power has always underwritten economic prosperity. From the Royal Navy protecting global commerce during the nineteenth century to the United States Navy securing international shipping after 1945, maritime security has been inseparable from economic growth. Nations that guarantee open sea lanes become anchors of global stability. Nations that threaten them become sources of persistent uncertainty.

Iran’s latest action demonstrates once again why American naval strength cannot become an afterthought. The oceans remain the highways of international commerce, and freedom of navigation remains one of the indispensable foundations of modern civilization. Weakness invites testing. Ambiguity encourages adventurism. Deterrence succeeds when potential aggressors conclude that violations will ultimately cost more than they can possibly gain.

Fortunately, no innocent lives were lost in this latest attack. That fact should be welcomed with genuine gratitude. Yet it would be a grave mistake to dismiss the incident simply because the physical damage proved limited. The strategic message carried by that drone reached far beyond the bridge of one cargo ship. It signaled an ongoing willingness by Tehran to test boundaries, challenge maritime norms, and remind the world that one of its most vital economic lifelines remains vulnerable.

The Strait of Hormuz is far more than a narrow body of water separating two coastlines. It is a critical pressure point in the modern world economy. When commerce flows freely through it, prosperity follows. When it becomes a battlefield, uncertainty spreads across continents. That reality explains why this latest Iranian provocation deserves the close attention not only of military planners and diplomats, but of every American who understands that national security and economic security have always been inseparable.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the federal government may legally limit the number of asylum seekers processed at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The Court held that migrants standing on the Mexican side have not yet “arrived in the United States” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), so they are not entitled to immediate inspection or to apply for asylum until they physically cross the border.

The policy originated under the Obama administration in 2016 in response to a surge of Haitian migrants overwhelming the San Ysidro port of entry. It was later expanded and used by the first Trump administration to manage capacity at border crossings. 

Lower courts had previously blocked it, but the Supreme Court overturned those rulings, clearing the way for the Trump administration to potentially revive the practice during future surges.

Justice Alito’s Majority Opinion:“In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a        place—for example, a house, a city, or a country—before the person enters that place. The context in which the phrase ‘arrives in the United States’ is used in the immigration statutes at issue here supports an ordinary-meaning reading.”

The Court rejected the argument that simply presenting oneself at the border from Mexico counts as “arriving in” the U.S. It also noted that metering only delays entry — it does not permanently bar anyone from seeking asylum later — and serves practical needs like preventing overcrowding.

Background on the Core Statutory Language:
Justice Alito’s focus on the phrase “arrived in the United States” directly addressed the central legal question that brought the case to the Supreme Court in the first place. 

The dispute, Mullin v. Al Otro Lado (formerly Noem v. Al Otro Lado), turned on the interpretation of that exact verbiage in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), specifically provisions like 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(a)(1) and 1225(a) that grant asylum eligibility and inspection rights to those who “arrive in” the United States.

Lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit had previously sided with challengers, holding that migrants who present themselves at a port of entry, even if physically stopped on the Mexican side, had legally “arrived,” triggering mandatory processing. 

The Supreme Court reversed this, adopting a plain text, commonsense reading that physical entry into U.S. territory is required. The Court essentially ruled that migrants on the Mexican side of the border have not yet “arrived in the United States” under the INA. Therefore, they are not entitled to immediate inspection or asylum processing at that moment.

Justice Thomas’s Concurrence:
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate concurring opinion, reinforcing the majority’s textualist approach while emphasizing broader principles of statutory interpretation and judicial restraint.

Justice Sotomayor’s Response:The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench — a rare step — and added extemporaneously that the ruling “regrettably and tragically extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.”

What This Means for Asylum Seekers Now:
Metering does not eliminate the right to seek asylum, it simply restores the government’s ability to manage the flow at official ports of entry. Migrants who are turned away can wait in Mexico for their appointed processing time, attempt irregular crossings between ports, which carries higher risks and different legal consequences, or pursue other pathways.

Once individuals physically enter the United States and are inspected, they remain eligible to apply for asylum by demonstrating a well-founded fear of persecution (or past persecution) on account of one of five protected grounds under U.S. law: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

For example, claimants who can credibly prove persecution based on race, such as targeted violence, discrimination, or harm tied to ethnic or racial identity in their home country, can still qualify. 

Successful claims typically require detailed evidence, including personal testimony, country condition reports, and corroborating documents. Asylum officers or immigration judges then assess “credible fear” in initial screenings before full merits hearings.

This ruling gives the administration more tools to control surges at legal entry points while preserving core statutory protections for real refugees. 

California Governor Gavin Newsom’s carefully cultivated image as the slick, telegenic heir apparent of the Democrats is cracking under the weight of millions being funnelled into organizations tied to his wife, Jennifer Siebel Newsom. A federal Department of Justice investigation, rooted in whistleblower complaints and public records, is examining the finances, tax compliance, and nonprofit dealings of the “First Partner” and, by extension, the governor himself. 

Newsom calls it a Trump-orchestrated “witch hunt” designed to derail his 2028 presidential ambitions. That “poor me” victimization defense sounds familiar — it echoes the initial denials from other politicians, like disgraced former Congressman Eric Swalwell, whose self-inflicted wounds later proved fatal to their careers. The evidence here is not fabricated talking points; it rests on a host of evidence—including IRS filings, Fair Political Practices Commission disclosures, and years of investigative reporting.

Newsom has been running a classic influence loop scam that has operated in plain sight. Under California’s behested payments system, elected officials can solicit unlimited donations from corporations, interest groups, and regulated entities to favored nonprofits. There are no contribution caps like those on campaign donations or gifts, only disclosure rules. Newsom has been the state’s most prolific practitioner: since 2011, he has steered $347.2 million — 62 percent of all such behests by California lawmakers — to his preferred causes.

A substantial portion has landed at organizations linked to his wife. Peering into Siebel Newsom’s records show that she was an early progenitor of using the woke DEI scam to fill her slimy husband’s coffers. The California Partners Project, which Siebel Newsom co-founded to promote “gender equity,” has received more than $4.3 million in behested donations since 2020. One donor alone, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (operator of a major Sonoma County casino that lobbies Sacramento), gave $1.8 million.

Even more revealing is the Representation Project, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by Siebel Newsom in 2011 to combat “gender stereotypes” through documentaries and advocacy. IRS filings show that over the past decade, the nonprofit paid her approximately $150,000 annually as Chief Creative Officer and another $150,000 yearly to her for-profit production company, Girls Club LLC, for licensing rights to her films Miss Representation and The Mask You Live In. Combined, she and her LLC have pulled in more than $3.7 million. Additional corporate donors to the Representation Project — including PG&E, AT&T, Kaiser Permanente, and Comcast — have business interests within the governor’s orbit. A 2021 Sacramento Bee investigation already flagged over $800,000 in such donations, which are a thinly veiled pay-for-play scheme.

This is not abstract “nonprofit chicanery.” It is a direct pipeline: state power and donor access leads to behested money to family-controlled nonprofits which results in salary, licensing fees, and production revenue to the governor’s spouse and her company. Siebel Newsom’s annual earnings from these arrangements have hovered around $300,000, contributing to a family lifestyle that includes multimillion-dollar homes and other assets. The Representation Project’s own filings show executive compensation consuming a striking share of revenue in some years — precisely the kind of private inurement and self-dealing that IRS rules and basic nonprofit governance are supposed to prevent.

Newsom’s complaints that this is purely political theater ignore the lengthy paper trail. The DOJ probe, which includes IRS involvement and has expanded from an initial focus on Siebel Newsom’s taxes and finances, originated from whistleblower complaints to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento well before recent public escalation. Agents have interviewed former employees and associates and issued subpoenas for records. These are standard steps in examining potential tax crimes and nonprofit compliance violations, not the hallmarks of a hastily manufactured political hit job. California’s own FPPC has already fined Newsom’s operation multiple times—for $13,000 and $31,500, respectgively—for late or incomplete behested payment disclosures.

The pattern of chief executives using nonprofits to shift around illicit money extends far beyond Sacramento. In Florida, a grand jury and legislative scrutiny examined how $10 million from a Medicaid overbilling settlement with Centene was directed to the Hope Florida Foundation, the charitable arm of an initiative launched by First Lady Casey DeSantis. The funds were diverted from state coffers and used on a political fund run by DeSantis’ then-chief of staff. The episode damaged reputations, stopped Casey DeSantis’ gubernatorial ambitions cold and underscored how first spouses’ nonprofits can become vehicles for corrupt money transfers. Across administrations and parties, the public is awakening to these arrangements as settlement slush funds, grant-making opacity, and family foundation pipelines face increasing congressional and media scrutiny.

Newsom was never a credible national contender. His record — an explosion of homelessness, business exodus, energy unreliability, and failed economic policy that delivered measurable decline — already disqualified him in the eyes of most Americans outside of coastal bubbles. This family enrichment scandal simply accelerates the inevitable. Even if the DOJ investigation yields no criminal charges (proving criminal intent in complex nonprofit and tax matters can oftentimes be difficult), the public record of self-dealing will provide devastating ammunition for progressive primary challengers who already view Newsom as an inauthentic, focus-grouped moderate poser more interested in personal branding than achieving genuine change. He will be rejected as the Democratic nominee in 2028.

Voters across the spectrum are growingly increasingly tired of polished operators who treat public office as an exercise in vanity. They are rejecting the used-car-salesman archetype — whether it wears a red tie or a blue one — in favor of bold authenticity. Newsom’s bonafides as a soulless hack position him as the perfect sacrificial lamb for populists from all sides to revel in his destruction. The old insider game of directing favors, behests, and nonprofit dollars to connected entities is coming to an abrupt, unceremonial end. California’s governor now finds himself in the crosshairs not because of any partisan vendetta, but because the evidence of his corruption has finally become too grotesque to ignore.