The Automatic Earth

Francesco Queirolo Il Disinganno, Naples, Sansevero Chapel 1753-1754

CNN: "We are just living in such a different universe if you‘re a Republican versus a Democrat, on the basic fundamental question of being proud to be an American."

Democrat leaders are brainwashing their voters to hate America. pic.twitter.com/2N8m5Hmnxi

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) June 30, 2026

Egypt forgot how to build the pyramids.

Rome forgot how to build the aqueducts. Some still carry water today. What they built still stands. Neither civilization remembers how they did it.

Musk: “You look at great civilizations like ancient Egypt, and they were able to make the… pic.twitter.com/XLyLn3a7Mg

— Dustin (@r0ck3t23) June 30, 2026

VP Vance on the communist takeover of the Democrat Party: "It is communism… This is abolishing the police, let criminals run amuck in the cities, flood your country with low-wage, third-world immigrants, and confiscating wealth, not because we want to make anybody's life… pic.twitter.com/AGluRIyE1C

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 30, 2026

Almost every major country on earth bans birthright citizenship because they aren’t idiots. Here’s a list of major countries who don’t allow birthright citizenship

– China
– Germany
– United Kingdom
– France
– Italy
– Russia
– Japan
– India
– South Korea
– Indonesia
– Turkey
-… pic.twitter.com/0rqOTjojm0

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 30, 2026

“There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.”

Birthright citizenship is a 150-year old theme that is being recast. It deserves the attention.

• SCOTUS Strikes Down Trump EO and Establishes Birthright Citizenship (CTH)

Like many of you I am profoundly angered by the Supreme Court decision that fractures our nation and conveys citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. In fact, I was so angered to my core, I went for a long walk before doing any further commenting on the matter. U.S. Citizenship is now determined by how good at violating our nation’s borders, by conniving, by scheming and by deception to create a qualified child where no adult qualification exists. This is the most detrimental decision by the Supreme Court in generations and will profoundly impact our nation. There is no longer an apple, it’s all worms.

Today, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship status to everyone born in the United States. In a decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, five supreme court justices agreed with the challengers saying Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

(6-3) Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.” Roberts was joined in the majority by Justice SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, BARRETT, JACKSON and KAVANAUGH. nbJustice THOMAS filed a dissenting opinion with GORSUCH and ALITO.

SCOTUS BLOG – In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling, “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed with the result that the court reached – that the president’s executive order is invalid – but not its reasoning. In his view, Trump’s order “does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment” but does violate a federal law providing that children who are “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are U.S. citizens. Congress, Kavanaugh suggested, “could amend” that law “or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country. But,” he noted, “Congress has not yet done so.”

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a lengthy dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. He called the majority’s account “not historically accurate” and said that it “adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support.” Gorsuch also wrote a separate brief dissent, in which he appeared to suggest that Trump’s executive order might violate the Constitution as it applies to the children of undocumented immigrants who intend to live in the United States permanently.

“If those parents are not domiciled here,” Gorsuch queried, “then where are they domiciled? And if the answer is nowhere,” he continued, “how can we reconcile that conclusion with this Court’s longstanding recognition that every person is domiciled somewhere?” Because the challengers in this case have argued that Trump’s order is invalid in all circumstances, rather than just some, Gorsuch explained, “these questions may not be properly before us. But their answers are undeniably important to a Nation committed to a view of citizenship open to all children born here to parents who can call this country their home.” (SOURCE)

Consequences and possibilities to come in the next few articles on the matter.

“.. the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects..”

• Justice Thomas Says Birthright Citizenship Ruling ‘Devalues’ US Citizenship (ET)

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a lengthy dissent criticizing the high court’s majority ruling against President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, saying the decision would effectively devalue American citizenship as it was understood by those who created the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Thomas said the majority is attempting to repurpose the 14th Amendment “to protect its own set of preferred rights that the Reconstruction Congress never contemplated and that cannot find support in its text,” referring to the post-Civil War era of the mid-to-late 19th century.

Further, he argued that the June 30 ruling denigrates the idea of U.S. citizenship, saying that it has been used by “foreign birth tourists and illegal aliens.”“I am not sure that today’s opinion will stand the test of time,” Thomas wrote. “The Citizenship Clause ‘added greatly to the dignity and glory of American citizenship.’ Today’s opinion devalues that citizenship.” The order issued by Trump aimed to exclude children of illegal immigrants and temporary visitors from gaining automatic birthright citizenship. In 1898, the high court delivered the landmark birthright citizenship ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which effectively stated that any child born in the United States to immigrants is granted citizenship regardless of the nationality of the child’s parents.

In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented and indicated that they would allow Trump’s executive order to stand. Justice Brett Kavanaugh partially concurred with the majority in saying that he thinks the Trump administration’s executive order does violate a federal statute but that the constitutionality of birthright citizenship is an open question and that the executive order doesn’t violate the 14th Amendment. “The Court today takes the extraordinary step of holding facially unconstitutional the President’s Order excluding from citizenship the children of foreign temporary visitors and illegal aliens,” Thomas said in the 91-page dissent, which is significantly longer than the majority’s opinion.

Thomas indicated that he sided with the Trump administration’s arguments that the 14th Amendment, ratified three years after the end of the Civil War in 1868, was intended to give citizenship to black people who were freed from slavery rather than automatically giving it to the children of immigrants. “In doing so, the Court adds to the sad history of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was designed and understood to secure equal rights for the freed blacks but has instead been repurposed for political projects that the Reconstruction Congress did not support,” he said. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Amy Coney Barrett, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Roberts wrote, citing congressional debate over the 14th Amendment. “We keep that promise today.” Multiple lower courts have blocked the executive order, signed by Trump early in his presidential term last year, and it has not taken effect anywhere in the United States. The high court ruled on the president’s appeal of a lower-court ruling from New Hampshire that struck down the birthright citizenship restrictions.

Birthright citizenship was the first Trump administration immigration-related issue to reach the Supreme Court for a final ruling. Since he took office, Trump has rolled out policies designed to deport large numbers of illegal immigrants, namely those with criminal records. He has also canceled temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of people living in the United States, bolstered U.S. border security, initiated policies encouraging illegal aliens to self-deport, and issued other rules. In response to the June 30 ruling, Trump said, “[The ruling is] too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation.”

“Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship,” he wrote on Truth Social. “They will have my Complete and Total Support!” In a previous post, he argued that “dumb judges and justices” allow wealthy women from China and elsewhere to come to the United States with the sole purpose of giving birth so that their children will be American citizens. He noted that few other countries have such a policy.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) hailed the majority opinion, saying that the “decision reaffirms a fundamental American promise—if you are born here, you are a citizen.” “A president cannot change the Constitution by executive fiat,” ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang said in a statement. “Our brave clients and our legal team stand with millions of people around our country who spoke up for one of our most cherished rights. The Constitution’s guarantee of birthright citizenship stands strong.”

“Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.

• A Roadmap To Fix Birthright Citizenship (Dmitri Bolt)

Despite Tuesday’s disappointing ruling on birthright citizenship, one of the conservative justices outlined a potential path forward that could address concerns such as birth tourism and the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority in striking down President Trump’s executive order but wrote separately in partial dissent. He concluded the order conflicted with existing federal law, not that it was unconstitutional. In his opinion, he also outlined a framework for addressing concerns surrounding birthright citizenship through legislation, making clear that any path to lasting change would likely require an act of Congress.

“Significant illegal immigration into the United States is a new circumstance that was largely unknown as of 1868 and that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment could not have fully anticipated,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “And the Framers likely would not have anticipated (and presumably would not have intended) the odd result of granting a substantial birthright citizenship benefit to (i) those foreign citizens who violate U. S. immigration law and illegally enter or overstay and then have children in the United States over (ii) those foreign citizens who follow U. S. immigration law and have children in their home countries while seeking to lawfully immigrate to the United States. Nor presumably would they have wanted to grant constitutional birthright citizenship to children of foreign citizens unlawfully in the country while simultaneously denying constitutional birthright citizenship to children of tribal American Indians.”

“Consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress could amend §1401(a) or otherwise enact new legislation establishing exceptions to birthright citizenship for children born to foreign citizens unlawfully or temporarily in the country,” he added. “But Congress has not yet done so.”

The likelihood of Congress taking up the issue remains slim, making Kavanaugh’s proposed path a difficult one. More importantly for the Trump administration, the Court did not merely hold that birthright citizenship is a matter for Congress to regulate. The majority reaffirmed that the Citizenship Clause applies to the children of individuals in the country illegally or on temporary visas, while noting that only narrow exceptions were historically recognized, including the children of foreign diplomats.

Even if Congress were to pass legislation altering the rules surrounding birthright citizenship, the law would almost certainly face immediate legal challenges before making its way back to the Supreme Court. It remains unclear whether Justices Amy Coney Barrett or Chief Justice John Roberts would alter their positions, though there is little indication they would. If not, the Court’s majority would likely continue to uphold its current interpretation of birthright citizenship.

Not a mistake. They didn’t have the guts to touch it.

• The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Mistake (Ben Shapiro)

The Supreme Court has now settled, at least for the foreseeable future, one of the most contentious questions in American immigration law: A child born in the United States is a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether the child’s parents entered the country legally or came solely to give birth. That remains the law after the court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. Barbara. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s liberal justices, concluded that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to virtually anyone born on American soil. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented, arguing that the majority has fundamentally misread both the Constitution and American history.

The ruling itself is hardly surprising. Federal courts have interpreted birthright citizenship this way for generations. What is remarkable is the historical reasoning Roberts employs to justify that conclusion. The 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The debate has always centered on these words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If mere birth within U.S. borders automatically settled the matter, the jurisdiction language would seem unnecessary. Why include it at all? That question lies at the heart of the case.

Roberts traces the answer back to English common law, arguing that the American understanding of citizenship grew directly out of Britain’s doctrine of birthright subjecthood. Under that rule, even a foreign woman who entered Britain briefly, gave birth and immediately departed still produced a child who owed allegiance to the Crown because the sovereign protected the child at birth. According to the majority, the American Founders largely carried that principle forward after independence, replacing “subjects” with “citizens” while preserving the underlying rule. The dissenters reject that premise entirely.

Thomas argues that the American Revolution was a rejection of the British conception of political allegiance itself. Americans ceased to be subjects of a monarch and became citizens of a republic. In his view, importing British common-law doctrines wholesale into the 14th Amendment ignores the very political philosophy that gave birth to the United States.Thomas contends that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requires more than physical presence. It requires complete political allegiance to the United States, not merely temporary subjection to American laws while visiting the country. Under that interpretation, citizenship would depend in significant part on the legal status and allegiance of the parents.

That approach is not without precedent. American law already looks to parental status in several contexts. Children born to foreign diplomats, for example, are not automatically granted U.S. citizenship because their parents are not fully subject to American jurisdiction. Thomas also disputes the majority’s historical account. He argues that the court relies heavily on the 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark while overlooking evidence from the years immediately following the ratification of the 14th Amendment. According to the dissent, all three branches of the federal government initially rejected the sweeping interpretation the court now embraces, and 19th-century Americans generally viewed exclusive national allegiance as incompatible with widespread dual citizenship.

Alito argues that the court is allowing practical concerns about modern immigration to shape its constitutional interpretation. Reversing the current understanding of birthright citizenship, he acknowledges, could create enormous legal and political complications for millions of people. But, Alito writes, avoiding difficult consequences is not a valid reason to adopt what he considers an incorrect reading of the Constitution.

In one of the sharpest passages of his dissent, Alito argues that the 14th Amendment does not require the nation to extend citizenship to the children of so-called birth tourists or others whose parents came to the United States solely to secure citizenship for their children. He concludes that the majority’s historical narrative is fundamentally flawed, beginning with its assumption that America simply inherited Britain’s rule of birthright subjecthood after independence. Whether one agrees with the majority or the dissent, the practical consequence is clear. Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land, and it is likely to remain so unless the Constitution is amended or the court revisits the issue in the future.

That places the responsibility squarely where it has long belonged: on Congress and the president. If policymakers believe current immigration policy encourages abuses of birthright citizenship, the remedy lies not with constitutional reinterpretation but with enforcing immigration law and reforming the nation’s border policies. The Supreme Court has spoken. The constitutional debate will continue, but the political branches can no longer avoid confronting the immigration system that made this controversy so consequential in the first place.

“Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.”

• The Roberts Requirement – Pregnancy Tests for U.S. Travel Visas

What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens. Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court. As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance. The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler. This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval. Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will. Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation. That antagonism can then be directed.

Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem. This can be done without visible vitriol. The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends. Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day. But people will lie – doesn’t matter. But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter. But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect. Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more. No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of. That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created. Now blame John Roberts for it.

This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types. The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision. Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome. Make SCOTUS own the outcome. Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply. The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it. Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.

A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled. A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc. Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions. Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.] No visas are exempt from the entry requirements. This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings. This is not a White House or State Department issue. This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.

Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound. Example of point and counterpoints. POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations. Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct. That was then; this is now. The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors.

Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed. Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it. Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do? Think about it! Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.

“The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.”

• The DOJ Goes to War on Birth Tourism After Losing at SCOTUS (Margolis)

It ain’t over until it’s over, and the Department of Justice says it ain’t over. For sure, the Supreme Court handed the left a win Monday, but the Department of Justice didn’t spend much time licking its wounds. The court ruled on Tuesday that President Donald Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. The ruling held that the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil regardless of their parents’ immigration status. This terrible ruling effectively protects “birth tourism,” the scheme in which pregnant women overstay visas or enter the country illegally specifically to give birth and secure U.S. citizenship for their children.

Jesse Watters addressed it on The Five on Tuesday. “Now, the Chinese communists could take their pregnant wife to Guam, have a baby, fly the baby back to Beijing with a U.S. passport, and then that baby, when he’s older, can get welfare, he can vote,” Watters said. “Technically, when he’s 35, he could become President of the United States. That’s the stupidest thing anyone ever thought of.” DOJ senior official Colin McDonald issued a department-wide memo directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations and criminal charges against people who travel to the United States under false pretenses to give birth. The potential charges include visa fraud, money laundering, identity theft, and wire fraud.

“The Department of Justice will zealously protect the sanctity of United States citizenship by investigating and prosecuting those who fraudulently exploit our immigration system,” McDonald wrote in the memo, which he posted publicly on social media. The DOJ had already telegraphed this move before the ruling came down, calling birth tourism a “national security threat” and pledging to “prioritize the prosecutions of birth tourism schemes across the country.” The Supreme Court can hold the line on the 14th Amendment. The DOJ intends to go after the fraud. The fraud, by the way, is real.

Back in 2019, Chinese national Dongyuan Li ran a company called You Win USA Vacation Services, which helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth. Li claimed to have served more than 500 customers, charging each between $40,000 and $80,000, and she received $3 million in wire transfers from China over two years. Li coached clients to lie on visa applications and at U.S. consulate interviews in China, claiming a two-week stay while planning to stay up to three months, and trained them to conceal their pregnancies from customs officials.

You Win USA marketed the service by promising children “13 years of free education,” “less pollution,” “an easier way for the whole family to immigrate to the United States,” and “priority for jobs in U.S. government, public companies, and large corporations.” Citizenship as a premium package, complete with step-by-step coaching on how to fool the U.S. government. Li pleaded guilty to federal charges in 2019. A judge sentenced her to 10 months in prison for running a multimillion-dollar operation that turned U.S. citizenship into a product. The Supreme Court may have blocked the executive order, but the DOJ hasn’t walked away from the fight.

“Slams Biden’s “heinous” policy of flying migrants en masse into Springfield and the Midwest”.

• Miller: Every Single Haitian Migrant Is GOING BACK to Haiti Under Trump (MN)

White House Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller delivered a clear and forceful message: every Haitian national on Temporary Protected Status will be returned to Haiti under President Trump. The Biden administration’s last-year extension of TPS turned what began as a short-term response to a 2010 earthquake into a permanent pipeline. Miller called the deliberate importation of these migrants into places like Springfield, Ohio, one of the most heinous acts the government has ever committed. Miller laid it out without hedging:

Stephen Miller: "The illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there."
pic.twitter.com/l56e2Tu5fH

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) June 30, 2026

“There’s an earthquake in Haiti. So she’s (Former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano) announcing TPS for a few months while they’re recovering from an earthquake. That was in 2010, 15 years ago. Then the Biden administration in its last year extends TPS to every single illegal alien from Haiti while they are flying them en masse into Springfield, Ohio, across the Midwest.” He continued, “It was a formal policy of replacing the communities that lived in, settled, and sustained these communities for generations. It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done.”

“And yes, under President Trump, let me be very clear, the illegal alien Haitians are going back to Haiti. They can build their country there,” Miller further urged. This directly follows the Trump administration’s earlier termination of TPS protections for 353,000 Haitians, with those designations set to expire. The move reversed Biden-era renewals that kept hundreds of thousands in the country long after any temporary justification had passed. Springfield became the most visible example of the fallout. Local residents watched as federal policies funneled large numbers of Haitian migrants into their city, straining housing, schools, and public resources.

Stephen Miller says every single Haitian on temporary protected status is going back

He says The Biden Admin specifically imported them into Ohio to replace the native population and “It was one of the most heinous things this government has ever done”

“There's an earthquake in… pic.twitter.com/4mfehuGJkM

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 30, 2026

Americans reported being priced out of apartments while migrants received housing assistance. Parks saw geese and other wildlife targeted. In one city commission meeting, Springfield City Manager Brian Heck admitted he had “heard about” reports of Haitian migrants eating pets. The conditions many of these migrants left behind in Haiti only underscore why prolonged TPS extensions made little sense. Armed gangs, including groups with documented histories of extreme violence and intimidation tactics, have dominated large parts of the country.

Earlier coverage highlighted how some media outlets appeared more exercised by conservatives simply stating these facts than by the violence itself. In a separate but related immigration development today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling striking down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.

BREAKING: In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s executive order limiting birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. pic.twitter.com/XZDld7UkxT

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) June 30, 2026

The decision keeps in place a policy that automatically grants U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil regardless of their parents’ legal status. Critics have long argued this creates powerful incentives for unlawful entry and serves as a form of chain migration that complicates enforcement.

One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration. https://t.co/qZuwzZq5tr

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 30, 2026

The 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was crafted in the aftermath of slavery to secure rights for freed people, not to function as a standing invitation for foreign nationals to secure citizenship for their offspring through illegal presence. While the birthright ruling hands open-border advocates a victory and adds another layer of legal friction to enforcement, Miller’s remarks show the administration is not pausing on other fronts. TPS designations were always meant to be temporary. Extending them for 15 years while actively importing large numbers into specific American communities was never about humanitarian relief — it was about demographic engineering.

American towns like Springfield paid the price in drastically altered neighborhoods, and lost quality of life. Restoring the original meaning of temporary protection and returning those without ongoing legal status is not radical. It is the baseline responsibility of any government that puts its own citizens first. The message from the White House is consistent: the replacement experiment is over. Those here under expired or terminated protections are going home. Haiti’s future will be built by Haitians in Haiti, not by continuing to offload its population onto American communities that never asked for the burden.

Antagonizing Trump will not work out well.

• The Canadian Dollar is Collapsing – Here’s What to Expect Next (CTH)

The Canadian dollar is starting to feel the effects of long-term uncertainty. It will get worse.

…”Since the start of June, the currency has weakened 2.9%, which would be its steepest monthly decline since October 2024, as Canadian bond yields fell further below U.S. yields.”…

Now, this is where you really need to pay attention to details. Remember, the U.K and EU have a vested interest in protecting Canada from economic collapse. President Trump doesn’t want immediate collapse either -because Xi will move in fast- but Trump is not going to provide the same financial and economic lifelines that the other four-eyes will trigger. Reuters is reporting that tomorrow the U.S. will formally declare a “non-extension” of the USMCA trade agreement and that triggers a 10-year period to decoupling. It is very important to understand there is a difference between announcing a “non-extension” and announcing a “withdrawal“. The Canadians are completely confused about what is about to happen.

In a non-extension announcement, the USA is saying they do not want to extend or renew the terms of the agreement beyond the current trade agreement terms. Yes, this is a 10-year exit. However, that’s not the part that matters. Announcing a decision to exit the USMCA (CUSMA), a full withdrawal from the trilateral deal, triggers a six-month countdown to exit. The deadline to announce the decision to extend is July 1st. There is no deadline on the timeline to announce an exit or withdrawal from the USMCA. That announcement can happen at any time. Put simply, announcing a non-renewal is a 10-year exit. Announcing a withdrawal is a 6-month exit. The announcement to withdraw can come at any time after the statement of non-renewal.

You can see the confusion in this article:
WASHINGTON, June 30 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is expected to formally declare on Wednesday that it will not extend the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, starting a decade-long clock to wind down the 32-year-old North American free trade zone as the three countries haggle over proposed changes. That declaration will kick off a six-year review session, part of a “sunset clause” negotiated by President Donald Trump’s first administration. However, it will do little to alter contentious negotiations over the pact’s future, including sweeping demands to boost U.S. and regional content in North American automotive production and trade protections to block Chinese goods from benefiting from USMCA. (read more)

The most likely scenario is Trump/Greer first say the USA is not renewing (not extending). Then, at a later date determined by them (in my opinion it will be after the U.S-Mexico agreement is finished), Trump and Greer will then announce the withdrawal, which will trigger the 6-month countdown to exit. There is no rush to announce the withdrawal; the only immediate action is to announce a USMCA renewal is not happening. What this scenario does is put maximum pressure on Canada. As soon as President Trump says the USA will not extend the agreement, all investment into Canada becomes extremely tenuous. The Canadian dollar will weaken further; a slow contraction will begin.

However, Canada will still be oblivious to what comes next because their media will tell them they have a decade to work things out. They don’t. At a time determined by President Trump and USTR Jamieson Greer, they will announce a decision to exit the USMCA which then triggers a 6-month phase before the agreement is terminated. This is where Canada will be caught off guard and the economic collapse will likely be rapid and catastrophic. Canada will only just begin to think about the “exit” scenario, once the non-renewal announcement is made. It will take them a while to realize how vulnerable they are – they are currently in full denial mode.

During this period, President Trump carries massive leverage against Canada. He will likely probe their trade position and willingness to comply with reciprocity after the non-renewal announcement. The outcome of those probes will determine the timeline of his exit announcement. During this non-renewal phase, we may even see President Trump tease the exit, then retract, then tease the exit again. Each time Trump tests the Canadian government with statements, the Canadian economy will pulsate and weaken; it will drive the Canadian government to either extreme anger, or defeated compliance.

Timing the completion of the U.S-Mexico deal within the probes of Canada will be super interesting. At some point as the U.S. closes in on the deal with Mexico, Canada is going to realize they are naked without any agreement. The worst-case scenario for Canada is President Trump announcing the USMCA exit on the same day he announces a completed bilateral deal with Mexico. It would be the worst-case scenario for Mark Carney because the ignored voices of those few people in Canada who have been trying to warn about this would suddenly get a lot of attention.

The “everything app” is not an app.

• Elon’s Next Move: Your Money (Adam Sharp)

For years, Elon Musk has dreamed of turning X (formerly Twitter) into the “everything app”. Now that X is part of SpaceX (SPCX), and the combined company just raised $112 billion, the time looks ripe. Elon envisions X as a single place where you can bank, chat, earn, advertise, use AI, shop, and more. X Money is a key part of that vision. And we just got the first idea of what it will look like. The program just launched to a small group of users. To attract deposits, X is offering some pretty crazy (and likely temporary) perks:

6% APY on cash, no deposit limit
3% cash back on purchases (with exceptions)
$10 million FDIC insurance (by splitting deposits up between banks)

A 6% yield is not sustainable long-term (at current interest rates). It’s a teaser rate to get people to switch to X Money. Same goes for 3% cash back. That’s 3x higher than the industry average, and will almost certainly not last long. These teasers may get a lot of people to switch. But it’s unclear how long the perks will last, and it’s currently only available to a small group. X is not a bank. At least not yet. It’s more like a “neobank”, which manages the marketing and customer relationship, while licensed banks handle the deposits. But for the user, it feels like a bank account and debit card. Deposits, yield, wire transfers, autopay, P2P payments, etc.

The WeChat Model
Musk’s desire to build the “everything app” may have been inspired by China’s WeChat. WeChat is owned by Chinese tech firm Tencent. It started out as a simple messaging app. But Tencent rapidly expanded its utility, and today it is basically a digital operating system for the country. In China, WeChat is used for payment, invoices, government interactions, making appointments, videos, shopping, games, chatting on social media, and much more. WeChat Pay holds a massive 38% share of payments in China. More than a billion people use the app. It’s so ubiquitous that many Chinese people essentially run their lives through the app. Largely as a result of WeChat’s success, Tencent has become a $488 billion tech giant. This is what Musk is aiming for. If X Money succeeds, it could help justify SpaceX’s lofty valuation of $2.2 trillion.

SpaceX’s Huge Ambitions
X (formerly Twitter) has been the least-discussed part of SpaceX. All the attention has been on rockets and AI. For good reason. Those are both very exciting areas. But X deserves attention as well. Musk aims to turn the social network into a super-app, much like WeChat. Musk purchased Twitter for $44 billion. If he succeeds, it could be worth much more over the long term. But running what is essentially a combination bank and social network is no easy matter. For one thing, it makes security far more important (and challenging). It’s going to require a massive customer support team. And that’s one area where Elon’s X has struggled.

X Money is going to be a critical part of building the “everything app”. And the team is going big on the launch. Think about the 6% APYs X is offering on deposits. Let’s say that X Money attracts $10 billion in deposits over the first year. Paying a 6% yield on that much cash could cost SpaceX $240 million a year in losses. That’s assuming their own internal return on cash is around 3.5%, plus bank fees and other transaction costs. This is why I assume the 6% APY is temporary.

And the 3% cash back? That appears to be on a debit card, which doesn’t have the same fee support as a credit card. So that could be another very expensive tool to attract users. But the losses could be worth it. The market they’re targeting is massive. Payments, banking, and eventually – everything.So will X succeed in becoming a “super app”? Honestly? I think it’s a long shot. X Money would probably need to be wildly successful and run away with the market.

One problem is that Meta/Facebook (META) will copy anything that looks to be working. The company is notorious for it. And they have a much larger user base. Meta also already has WhatsApp pay and several payment integrations with Facebook. Another problem is that American banks are extremely profitable, and in some ways act like a cartel. They won’t appreciate X stepping onto their turf, and may fight back. With lawfare, lobbying, or other means.

A Beautiful But Difficult Model
The “everything app”, or the WeChat model has been the dream of every social media company in the world for a while. But it’s going to be very difficult to pull off at this stage of the game. Then again, we should never count Elon out. If he’s going to go hard after this market, SpaceX certainly has a shot at winning it. SpaceX just raised $87 billion in its IPO, then another $25 billion in bond sales. That is a massive war chest. SPCX has big aspirations. And with a $2.2 trillion market cap, it has a lot of growing to do in order to justify that lofty price. X Money is a calculated risk by SpaceX. One that could pay off big.

“Everything app” device.

• SpaceX Takes Aim At Smartphone Market With New AI Device (ZH)

The story around Elon Musk’s SpaceX positioning Starlink as a potential mobile carrier to challenge legacy telcos and cable dinosaurs continues to gain momentum. A new Wall Street Journal report says the AI and rocket company has shown investors a prototype of a handset-like device, suggesting SpaceX may be looking beyond satellites and broadband toward vertically integrated consumer devices to take on smartphone giants like Apple and Samsung.

SpaceX has developed a prototype for a handset-like device designed to reshape how humans interact with artificial intelligence: WSJ

The prototype features a sleek design that is slimmer than an iPhone; it was shown to some investors and other stakeholders ahead of the company’s…

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 1, 2026

The device, described by people familiar with the matter as slimmer than an iPhone with a “sleek design,” is still said to be in the prototype stage. It is expected to run on a Qualcomm Snapdragon chipset, suggesting SpaceX may be testing a consumer hardware layer that could eventually tie together Starlink connectivity, xAI software, and a proprietary operating system. Last week, TD Cowen analyst Gregory Williams told clients that if SpaceX/Starlink fails to secure an MVNO/retail mobile deal, then the next logical move would be to acquire T-Mobile. SpaceX told some investors that the project was at an early stage. The design could change and it is unclear whether such a device will be made.

…

The project is a sign of Musk’s sprawling ambitions as he builds a leading global satellite connectivity network, grows his rocket company and creates new AI tools. AI companies are placing a variety of bets on the future form and functionality of AI-powered devices. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Musk has in the past weighed building a smartphone due to frustration over how Apple controls distribution of third-party apps such as X. It isn’t easy, however, for a newcomer to break into the hardware business. -WSJ

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire
The read here is that Musk appears to be eyeing the entire consumer connectivity stack in one swoop. Starlink is the network layer, xAI provides the intelligence layer, a proprietary operating system would control the software experience, and a handset-like device would serve as the consumer endpoint. In other words, Musk is not just challenging telcos and big cable. It is also a shot across the bow for smartphone makers, app stores, and the AI assistant layer now being embedded across consumer devices.

They need Trump to go along. Or it will be after his term. But war it will be.

• NATO Chief Admits To Sleepless Nights Over Russia (TASS)

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte believes Russia to be the main threat to the alliance and admits that this keeps him up at night. “Usually, I try to sleep at night, but if something keeps me up, it’s Russia. <…> China is having a massive buildup of its own military, will have 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. So, let’s not be naive about China. But <…> Russia is the main threat now and in the longer term,” the NATO chief told the Anadolu news agency in an interview ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Ankara on July 7-8. He added that one of the alliance’s priorities is “maintaining support for Ukraine.”

When asked about his expectations for the summit, Rutte said he hopes that, once it concludes, “people will say it was a summit that implemented the commitments made in The Hague [last year].” These were increasing defense spending and strengthening the military-industrial complex. “There are several successful examples, and things are generally getting better. One of the most important priorities is increasing production output in the defense industry. We will address this issue first at the NATO Defense Industry Forum on the summit’s opening day,” the NATO chief noted.

“Bringing back cheap Russian energy would help the German economy recover, AfD leader Alice Weidel has said..”

She makes sense. But they’ve long since decided on war.

• Leader of Germany’s Most Popular Party Wants To Restore Ties With Russia (RT)

Germany urgently needs to lift the ban on Russian oil and gas imports to prop up its struggling economy, Alice Weidel, the co-chair of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has said. She also vowed to restore economic ties between the two countries if her party comes to power. The German economy was dealt a major blow when the country took part in the Western sanctions on Russia in 2022. Before the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, Germany relied on Russia for 55% of its natural gas. Russian oil giant Rosneft’s operations also accounted for around 12% of Germany’s total oil-processing capacity.

“Cheap energy from Russia was the secret of the success of ‘Made in Germany’. We need it back,” Weidel said in an interview with Reuters published on Tuesday. “The loss of this energy has set us back years. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. It has made us dependent on the United States, which sells us energy at far higher prices.” The decision to abandon cheap Russian energy played a major role in slowing down the German economy, which contracted in 2023 and 2024 – the first back-to-back annual drop since the early 2000s.

In January, the country’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry (DIHK) reported an alarmingly high number of bankruptcies. In March, the Federal Statistical Office said the nation’s industrial output fell by 1.2% year-on-year. In both cases, high energy prices were cited as a key factor. The German Environmental Aid Association (DUH) reported in January that 96% of the nation’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2025 came from the US. The AfD has argued that Germany essentially became dependent on one country.

The AfD has steadily gained support in Germany amid record-low approval ratings for Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s policies. Berlin has been actively pouring money into a military buildup, citing the supposed ‘Russian threat’, which Moscow has dismissed as “nonsense.” Merz has also blamed the country’s economic problems on the German people, urging them to “work more,” while announcing plans to slash social spending.

An INSA survey published on Tuesday suggests that the AfD enjoys the greatest support among all German parties (29%), seven percentage points ahead of Merz’s Christian Democratic Union. The right-wing party’s popularity has grown despite being boycotted by all other major German parties as part of the ‘firewall’ – an informal ban on any coalition or coordinated voting with the AfD. The next general election in Germany is expected in 2029.

“Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure.”:

• Ozempic Sat Unused for Decades (QTR)

Led by Ozempic and Wegovy, glucagon-like peptides (GLP-1s) have become a global phenomenon, with one in eight US adults currently taking one. Those two branded compounds, both made by Novo Nordisk, emerged from attempts to develop a diabetes drug. It effectively lowers blood glucose, slows gastric emptying, and reduces hunger, leading many patients to experience profound weight loss. In a world plagued by increasing obesity, the drugs’ utility extends far beyond diabetes treatment. So why did the formula sit untouched for 30 years after it was licensed?

Ozempic is a story of pharmacological success, but also of entrepreneurial failure. The tale provides a strong reminder that inventions and discoveries mean little unless they are combined with sound entrepreneurial judgment. According to a paper published in the Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, a startup produced a GLP compound in the late 1980s, and pharma giant Pfizer sponsored human trials that confirmed the drug’s efficacy in reducing blood glucose levels and slowing gastric emptying. One member of the startup team, Jeffrey Flier of Harvard, explained what happened next:

I was shocked when told that senior Pfizer leadership had concluded that there would never be another injectable therapy for diabetes other than insulin. What led them to this conclusion was never explained….I had been deeply impressed by their rapid decision to invest in our company, and I was equally dumbfounded by their decision to end their investment despite convincing early evidence of the program’s success. Confident in its own conclusions, Pfizer pulled the plug on the drug in 1991. The startup folded.

Under the terms of Pfizer’s agreement, the license remained with the Boston hospital where researchers discovered GLP-1’s mechanism and conducted the human trials. It was then acquired by Novo Nordisk in 1992, where scientists used it to develop what eventually became semaglutide, the pharmaceutical sold as Ozempic and Wegovy. While it is unclear whether, as Max Marchione put it on Twitter, the GLP-1 agonist data simply “sat in a filing cabinet for 30+ years,” Pfizer’s decision to abandon the project likely delayed its development…

“ If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”

• How Fauci Can Still Face Prosecution Despite His Pardon (Margolis)

Joe Biden thought he handled it. Well, at least whoever wrote the preemptive pardon and signed it with the autopen did. That was supposed to be the insurance policy that kept the former NIAID director from being held accountable. The good ol’ get-out-of-jail-free card before Anthony Fauci was even charged with anything. Biden pitched it as protection from lawfare, but we all know what it really was, and we’ll soon get the truth, one way or another.

As you know, on her final day as Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard released a tranche of previously unreleased documents and communications laying out what many Americans have suspected for years. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, funneled millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars into dangerous gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the lab now widely believed to be the source of COVID-19. He did it.

And then he lied about it. “Before the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci, as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, provided millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund dangerous gain of function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Gabbard said in a video she posted to X, “work which is now widely viewed as the source of the unintentional lab leak that sparked the pandemic.”

According to Gabbard, Fauci funded the research tied to Big Pharma’s multi-trillion-dollar pursuit of a universal vaccine, then pressured handpicked experts to promote a natural-origin narrative, deflecting blame from the Wuhan lab. Then, he used his media access to amplify his version of events while crushing any dissent. “These documents expose Fauci’s direct role in influencing and manipulating IC assessments on COVID-19 and how Fauci lied to Congress in 2024 when under oath, he denied knowledge of or participation in discussions with intelligence officials about viral research,” Gabbard said.

Compare that to what Fauci told the Senate in 2021, when he told Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.): “With all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” He said that under oath. The documents say otherwise. Independent journalist John Solomon argues that Fauci could still face prosecution, spelling it out in an interview with Bill O’Reilly.

“We know that in the end days of Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci got a pardon,” Solomon began. “He can’t be prosecuted for anything before January 20, 2025. But if Rand Paul puts him on the stand next week, as he’s going to compel him to do, and Anthony Fauci does not tell the truth this time in the body of evidence that’s there, he could be instantly prosecuted by the Trump Justice Department. If he does tell the truth, he’s going to have to admit he lied to us previously.”

Basically, Fauci, under oath again, has a choice: lie about what he did under oath and face prosecution, or admit he lied under oath before. Since Biden’s pardon only covered what Fauci did before Biden officially left office, if he commits perjury, there’s nothing that can protect him. It left him completely exposed to everything that comes after. With Gabbard’s documents on the table and Paul’s committee waiting, that reckoning is no longer hypothetical.

Both options for Fauci will be devastating for his legacy.

The left media has been hateful and dishonest about Elon for 20 years. Now they have upped their game. There must be lots of money coming their way. They depend on their readers and viewers being stupid and crazy. Fortunately, we have X. Angry mom. https://t.co/01jSR9IGGJ

— Maye Musk (@mayemusk) June 30, 2026

Neuralink has solved through-dura electrode implantation!

This is a very big deal, as it greatly improves the safety and ease of interfacing with the brain. https://t.co/NV59xKAE22

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 30, 2026

RFK Jr. Announces He's Ending Emergency Liability Protection For COVID-19 Vaccine Makers https://t.co/vkZg1Cg9YD

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 1, 2026