Zero Hedge

France To Reimburse Patients For Anti-Obesity Drugs

France To Reimburse Patients For Anti-Obesity Drugs

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

France is set to begin reimbursing severely obese people for the cost of weight-loss drugs, French Health Minister Stéphanie Rist said on May 28.

Wegovy at a pharmacy in London on March 8, 2024. Hollie Adams/Reuters

She said that Paris would subsidize the use of Danish company Novo Nordisk's Wegovy and American pharma giant Eli Lilly's Mounjaro from mid-June.

"I am quite proud, because we are the first country in the European Union to provide reimbursement ... on a permanent basis," Rist told French broadcaster TFI.

Officially, reimbursement will cover 65 percent of the cost of the weight-loss drugs, "but almost all patients will be covered" in full if they have "comorbidities, such as high blood pressure or diabetes," she said.

"For the vast majority, it will be 100 percent reimbursement," Rist added.

She said the eligibility criteria for the scheme would remain strict.

"It was decided to reimburse these medicines for people with severe obesity, with a body mass index above 35 with comorbidities, or above 40. These are people who may be candidates for surgery, for an operation to treat their obesity, and who will be able to receive these medicines if the doctor considers that they should be prescribed," Rist said.

She estimated the cost to French public finances at "around 100 million euros [$116 million] annually."

Elsewhere in Europe, though outside the EU, the UK and Switzerland both subsidize the use of similar weight-loss medications, known as glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1s).

GLP-1s are hormones produced naturally within the body that regulate blood sugar and suppress appetite.

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) offers limited access to such drugs, with medications prescribed and a standard prescription fee of 9.90 pounds per item (about $13.26), or free, depending on the patient's circumstances.

In Switzerland, people who meet certain criteria are also eligible for reimbursement for the use of Wegovy under the government's mandatory health insurance scheme.

Further afield, Japan operates a scheme similar to Switzerland's, while Canada last month approved the sale of generic versions of semaglutide, the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy, paving the way for more widespread subsidized prescriptions for the medication. In Canada, the availability of subsidized Ozempic varies by province.

In the United States, U.S. President Donald Trump said on May 1 that Medicare patients will soon be able to obtain coverage for weight-loss drugs for $50 per month.

Speaking at an event in Florida, Trump said coverage for weight-loss and diabetes medications will begin in July.

"Today, I'm thrilled to announce that starting on July 1, we will also provide Medicare patients with the coverage for weight-loss drugs like Ozempic, Zepbound, Wegovy," he said. "So if it was $1,300, now it's $50. And the $1,300 doesn't cover a whole month. So it's really even more than that. So it's now down to $50."

In December 2025, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a voluntary model known as Better Approaches to Lifestyle and Nutrition for Comprehensive Health to expand access to GLP-1 medications for weight management and metabolic health, allowing Medicare Part D plans and state Medicaid agencies to cover the drugs while negotiating lower prices.

The model, which would enable the CMS to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices and standard terms of coverage, was initially expected to launch in January 2027, but officials said in April it would be delayed "pending further evaluation and data collection."

The CMS said in April that it would extend its bridge program, a short-term solution to provide eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries with access to certain GLP-1 drugs, until December 2027.

Part D refers to the prescription drug benefit run by private insurers approved by Medicare. CMS stated on its website that the bridge program would "operate outside of the Medicare Part D benefit's coverage and payment flow."

Overweight people walk through the city center in Glasgow, Scotland, on Oct. 10, 2006. Jeff J. Mitchell/Getty Images Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 05:00

Vance Says Trump Not Ready To Approve Iran Deal, Citing Distance On Nuclear Issue

Vance Says Trump Not Ready To Approve Iran Deal, Citing Distance On Nuclear Issue Summary
  • Rtrs citing Iran's Fars: Iran's armed forces carries out a missile launch operation from southern regions of the country toward specified targets. Reports of US ships targeted (unconfirmed); also 'warning shots' fired on 'illicit' vessels.
  • Per Axios: "U.S. and Iranian negotiators have reached an agreement on a 60-day memorandum of understanding to extend the ceasefire and launch negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, but President Trump has yet to give it his final approval."
  • Unconfirmed reports of Ayatollah denial of MOU.
  • Saudi state media reports Pakistan is seeking to convince Washington to allow transfer of Iran's highly enriched uranium to China (Al Hadath).
  • Iran launches ballistic missile on US base in Kuwait, which was reportedly intercepted by Kuwaiti forces.
  • Fresh launch is retaliation for prior evening's skirmish involving US intercepting Iranian drones, and targeting coastal launch location.
//--> //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 42% · No 59%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Vance says Trump Not Ready to Approve MOU with Tehran

Vice President J.D. Vance says that US President Trump is not yet ready to endorse the Iran agreement, but still noted that US and Iran made a lot of progress towards a ceasefire deal, according to AFP

The US and Iran remain at odds on uranium enrichment and stockpiles, he confirmed. And further:

US VP Vance says US and Iran are exchanging proposals regarding some drafting points including issue of enrichment, adds time is still early to know when an agreement with Iran will be reached and if it will happen at all

Reports of New Military Incident in Hormuz Strait

Following earlier reports of the US & Iran having tentatively reached a Memorandum of Understanding on 60-day truce for talks, and pending Trump's approval, there has been fresh Thursday night (local time) chatter out of Iran on potential fresh attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.

Israel and US media correspondents have commented based on emerging accounts of Iranian sources: Iran has reportedly targeted American ships in Hormuz. Times of Israel writes:

The fresh fighting appeared to begin when Iranian forces fired at four ships attempting to cross the strait, state broadcaster IRIB reported on Thursday.

“Four vessels attempted to cross the Strait of Hormuz and enter the Persian Gulf without coordination with the security forces,” IRIB posted on Telegram, saying the incident took place at around 12:35 a.m. local time. It did not provide details on the ships.

“They were warned, but after they ignored the warning, warning shots were fired at them, forcing them to return,” the broadcaster added.

And Reuters:

IRAN'S FARS: IRAN'S ARMED FORCES CARRIES OUT A MISSILE LAUNCH OPERATION FROM SOUTHERN REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY TOWARD SPECIFIED TARGETS

Israel's Channel 12 also cited Iranian 'opposition sources' to say that there was a missile launch observed near the city of Bushehr in southern Iran. If this fresh incident is confirmed, it would mark the third such clash between US and Iranian forces in the contested waters within just a couple days.

Some latest on MOU status:

Bessent: We are being Patient, & Strikes could Come Back Reports that Ayatollah has Not Accepted MOU

And very quickly on the heels of the Axios report, there chatter that the Iranian side has not actually approved:

Oil Tumbles on Reported MOU Breakthrough

Per Barak Ravid: "U.S. and Iranian negotiators have reached an agreement on a 60-day memorandum of understanding to extend the ceasefire and launch negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, but President Trump has yet to give it his final approval," two US officials have told Axios. This could be the hugest diplomatic breakthrough yet, after weeks of stalled talks, but it awaits President Trump's.

"U.S. officials said the deal terms were mostly agreed as of Tuesday, but both sides still needed to get approval from senior leadership," Axios notes by way of caveat. According to some emerging details from the report:

  • The U.S. officials claimed the Iranians later came back and said they had the necessary approvals and were prepared to sign. Iran has not confirmed that.
  • The U.S. negotiators briefed Trump on the details of the final deal and he asked to take a few days to think about it.
  • "The president relayed to the mediators that he wants a couple of days to think about it," a U.S. official said.

Key question: is Iran's high enriched nuclear material part of the MOU? This could put it in jeopardy.

Oil tumbles on the headline...

Uranium Transfer to China?

According to Saudi state-funded Al Hadath, Pakistan will present to the US the "transfer of Iranian uranium to Beijing under international supervision."

The report seems unlikely, given it is also worded in such a way as to suggest the scheme originates with Pakistan, as a desperate attempt to keep stalled talks alive. Tehran has never indicated it would contemplate sending its enriched uranium stockpile abroad, even to a 'friendly' nation. 

Iranian Launch on Kuwait

The government of Kuwait on Thursday has made clear it retains all rights to take measures to preserve its security, following a overnight Iranian missile strike. Kuwait's Foreign Ministry further condemned the fresh missile ⁠and drone ⁠attacks on its territory as ‌a serious escalation and "blatant violation of sovereignty and ⁠security." The Iranian launch, which Tehran says targeted a US base in Kuwait, came in response to US bombardment of an Iranian drone base near the southern city of Bandar Abbas which occurred just prior.

via Associated Press

In a new statement, US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirms that "At 10:17 p.m. ET on May 27, Iran launched a ballistic missile toward Kuwait that was successfully intercepted by Kuwaiti forces."

"This egregious ceasefire violation by the Iranian regime occurred hours after Iranian forces launched five one-way attack drones that posed a clear threat in and near the Strait of Hormuz," the US military statement continued.

"All drones were successfully intercepted by U.S. forces which also prevented a sixth drone launch from an Iranian ground control site in Bandar Abbas," it added. "U.S. Central Command and regional partners remain vigilant and measured as we continue to defend our forces and interests from unjustified Iranian aggression."

Additionally, the Gulf statement strongly condemned the fresh Iranian attack, with the head of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), Jasem Mohamed Al-Budaiwi, denouncing it as follows: "The secretary-general pointed out that the continuation of these treacherous attacks is a flagrant violation of the principles of international law, the Charter of the United Nations, and the principles of good neighborliness." The GCC statement added: "His excellency affirmed the GCC countries’ full support for the state of Kuwait in all measures it takes to preserve its security and stability, and the safety of its citizens and residents,"

A separate statement from Saudi-led Gulf allies further condemned the act of 'terrorism' - per Al Aljazeera:

The United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia have condemned a missile attack on a US airbase in Kuwait with only the UAE expressly naming Iran as responsible for the “terrorist attacks”.

In statements shared on social media, the foreign ministries of the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia said they consider the attack “a flagrant violation” of Kuwait’s sovereignty, and expressed their countries’ “full solidarity” with Kuwait and “support for all measures” it takes to preserve its sovereignty, security and stability.

Two US-Iran Clashes Incidents This Week

This marks the second live-fire attack flare-up this week, after earlier Wednesday Iran fired drones on American and other foreign commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

"American F/A-18, F-16 and F-35 jet fighters shot down the drones, then the F/A-18s hit the ground-control unit before it could launch a fifth drone, one of the officials said," The Wall Street Journal summarizes of that first incident.

State TV released video of the ballistic missile launch targeting a US base in Kuwait:

Stalemated Talks Hung Up on Nuclear Issue

It seems that Iran is asserting some red lines through single, sporadic attacks, when it perceives a US military violation of its sovereignty. WSJ cites the following:

The spokesman for the National Security Commission in Iran’s parliament said Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge that the U.S. and Tehran were still at war was a sign of his weak negotiating position. "Diplomats should not let go of the enemy’s weak point and should impose maximum demands on them," the spokesman said.

Currently, negotiations are still primarily stuck on the nuclear issue. President Trump has vowed not to let off sanctions pressure until Tehran agrees to dismantle its nuclear program by handing over highly enriched uranium to be transferred off its territory. Iranian officials say this simply will not happen, and that it would be tantamount to handing over the country's sovereignty. Tehran has insisted the nuclear file must be dealt with after the war is over, and later on down the line.

More Latest Developments

Round-up via Newsquawk...

  • US official said US military carried out new strikes on an Iranian military site and shot down multiple Iranian drones that posed a threat to US forces and commercial maritime in the Strait of Hormuz.
  • IRGC said it targeted the US air base in response to the US aggression earlier near Bandar Abbas Airport, according to Tasnim. said:. Any further US attacks would trigger a more decisive response. Washington bears responsibility for consequences.
  • Military source tells Tasnim that hours ago, a US oil tanker intended to cross the Strait of Hormuz by turning off radar system, but IRGC Navy fired at it and forced it to turn back, while US army fired into Bandar Abbas but caused no damage. This was the cause of the earlier reported explosions. No casualties or damages were caused by the US, which fired at a scorched-earth area.
  • Iran's Navy forced four vessels to turn back in the Strait of Hormuz by firing warning shots, according to Tasnim.
  • Sound of three explosions heard from the east of Bandar Abbas, Iran, with exact location and source of the sounds still unclear, while air defences were activated for a few minutes, according to Fars News Agency.
  • "Hearing the sound of multiple explosions in Kuwait", ISNA reported, "Kuwait’s official news agency stated that air defense systems are currently countering missile and drone attacks" [likely referring to earlier reported].
  • Air raid sirens sounding in Kuwait, while Kuwaiti Army said air defense intercept hostile missile and drone attacks, according to Al Hadath.
  • Commentary
  • US Treasury Secretary Bessent said Gulf Strait Authority action targets Hormuz tolls, adds the Treasury is maintaining maximum pressure on Iran.
  • Iranian National Security Council Official Bagheri said Iran’s assets must be released unconditionally, Tasnim reported.
  • US issues fresh Iran-related sanctions by adding Persian Gulf Strait Authority to its SDN list.
  • US has carried out a defence operation in Bandar Abbas, Iran, according to Faytuks Network citing an official that said, “the US will act to safeguard its regional interests, and this does not affect the ceasefire”.
  • Iran Supreme National Security Council Deputy Secretary Baqeri met with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov, and discuss a number of important issues on the current international agenda with focus on the situation around Iran's nuclear program. Via IRNA/Telegram.
  • Deputy Head of Public Relations for the IRGC Aerospace Force, Ali Naderi, said on Wednesday If enemies launch military action again, the Islamic Republic's response will be different from anything seen so far. said: "...they will face a new image of Iran".
  • Head of Iranian Parliament National Security Committee said Iran will not be pushed back by US President Trump's rhetoric from its red lines: rights to enrich uranium and its possession, authority over the Strait of Hormuz and removal of sanctions.
  • IRIB reporter said no signs of an explosion have been seen in Bandar Abbas, while some people have heard the sound of this explosion and none of the officials concerned about the matter have issued any official statement.
  • Axios reported that US military had shot down 4 Iranian drones targeting ships and an Iranian drone launcher on the ground.
  • Israeli fighter jets carry out attack on the city of Tyre in southern Lebanon, according to Mehr News Agency.
  • Hamas spokesperson said the Gaza ceasefire agreement faces risk of collapse due to occupation's crimes and ongoing violations, Al Jazeera reported.
  • IDF said it's striking Hezbollah infrastructure in the area of Tyre in southern Lebanon.
Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 04:44

Canadian Government Is Crushing Indie Media With Two Sneaky Policies

Canadian Government Is Crushing Indie Media With Two Sneaky Policies

Canada is not only going the way of Europe with the country's draconian speech laws, it is in many ways surpassing the suppression and censorship across the Atlantic.  The speed at which the population is being robbed of their freedoms is staggering, and much of this is being done through backdoor bureaucracy.  

One factor that consistently frustrated the globalist Trudeau regime during the pandemic lockdowns was the Canadian public's access to national and international independent media.  Even with political leaders working directly with social media giants to censor users, truthful data outside of the institutional filters was still being effectively spread by alternative journalists and news sites. 

This ultimately led to a large enough backlash in Canada and the US that eventually, covid mandates had to be abandoned.  Indie journalists were central to the effort to expose pandemic fallacies promoted by politicians as "science". 

It would seem that in Canada, the elites are quickly working to close that loophole. 

Mere proximity to the US makes censorship projects more difficult for the Canadian government, though incrementalism is well underway and "hate speech" laws in Canada are used on occasion to silence dissent, specifically on transgender issues.  But officials are utilizing two sneaky policies as a way to subvert indie media outlets without directly shutting them down. 

The first policy is the Canadian Online News Act passed in 2023.  This bill was presented as a way to force Big Tech intermediaries like Google and Facebook to share profits they derive from the flow of content created by mostly smaller digital media providers (indie media).  It requires large online platforms to compensate Canadian news outlets for making their content available—through links, snippets, sharing, or search results.      

The Act argues that platforms benefit from news content (driving engagement and traffic) without fairly sharing value with creators. It's supposed aim is to sustain journalism, especially local and independent outlets. 

However, the opposite has happened.  Big Tech companies are blocking Canadian media instead, making it difficult or impossible to maintain traffic to their websites.  Google has cut a $100 million deal to avoid settlements with individual outlets, but once it is spread out, this money is nowhere near enough to make up for the ad revenues losses they face.

Larger corporate media outlets are able to survive because they have the money to advertise and generate their own views.  Indie outlets rely on word of mouth and link sharing, which is now being eliminated because of government regulation.

The second policy which is crushing indie media in Canada is the use of government subsidies as a designator for "official journalism".  

Two major federal departments - Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) - have quietly updated their media accreditation policies to prioritize or limit government responses to journalists.  Canadian bureaucrats are increasingly restricting which outlets they will talk to and will only work with those designated as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (QCJO). 

QCJO is a government program (administered by the Canada Revenue Agency) tied to tax credits and subsidies for journalism and it's linked to broader media support efforts, including overlapping with the Online News Act.  

To put it plainly, government institutions in Canada are saying that only certain media outlets that receive subsidies are considered "real news".  Eligible outlets get favored access to officials and information.  In other words, the government decides who is a journalist and who is not.

Backlash forced the government to back-peddle and clarify that QCJO status is strictly for tax/funding eligibility and not a press pass or accreditation tool to determine who qualifies as a "legitimate" journalist.  Critics argue, though, that the framework for this government filter is still in place even if they are not currently using it. 

If subsidies become a press pass, then only government funded and controlled media outlets will be able to operate in the Canadian system. 

One might question why anyone outside of Canada should care about how they regulate or manipulate their news platforms.  After all, Canada is a tiny country their impact on the rest of the west is minimal.  But this is a short-sighted way of thinking. 

It might be wiser to look at Canada as a kind of political petri dish; a beta test for regulations and controls that are likely to be tried in other countries in the near future.  Canada enforced some of the most stringent and authoritarian covid mandates of any western nation (except perhaps Australia and New Zealand).  Though this ultimately failed, it still shows that globalists view Canada as a testing ground. 

Today, the top goal of far-left governments is clearly the sabotage of independent media.  They've realized that they cannot assert dominance in other areas of life without first fully silencing free media.         

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 04:15

Leak Exposes Germany Forcing Social Media To Boost State Propaganda, Bury Dissent

Leak Exposes Germany Forcing Social Media To Boost State Propaganda, Bury Dissent

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

European elites are reeling from the information revolution they failed to suppress. A fresh leak exposes Germany’s state media regulators plotting a new law to compel social media platforms to automatically boost “reliable” and “trusted” mainstream outlets in their algorithms.

Sold as a defense of “media plurality” against disinformation, this scheme reveals the ugly truth: after brute-force censorship ignited a global backlash and helped propel Elon Musk’s purchase of X, authorities are now seeking to engineer the feeds themselves to favor their approved narratives while sidelining dissent.

This marks a shift from overt suppression to insidious manipulation. What began as panic over losing control has evolved into calculated digital gerrymandering. The awakening—fueled by years of heavy-handed crackdowns—created demand for uncensored spaces. Now, unable to fully extinguish that flame, regulators aim to starve alternative voices of oxygen through algorithmic favoritism.

The internal strategy paper from Germany’s Landesmedienanstalten, the network of state media authorities, outlines plans for a Digital Media State Treaty. It would grant automatic algorithmic preference to selected outlets.

The document remains in preparatory stages but is slated for presentation to politicians imminently. Thorsten Schmiege, head of the regulators and Bavaria’s media authority president, indicated a first draft could arrive this summer.

Critics rightly note the core problem: who defines “reliable” and “trusted”? The same state bodies entangled with public broadcasters that have repeatedly demonstrated bias. This isn’t about plurality; it’s about preserving a monopoly on public discourse as legacy media hemorrhages trust and audience.

Mike Benz, former State Department cyber official and vocal critic of censorship regimes, highlighted the international stakes in a pointed post reacting to the leak. He warned that dozens of other countries are watching closely to see if Germany can get away with it.

Benz stressed the need for visible US retaliatory threat or diplomatic intervention, stating that without it, “you will not believe the speed at which this cancer will spread.” He urged nipping this in the bud by whatever diplomatic, economic, or sanctions means are necessary.

This proposal doesn’t emerge in isolation. It builds directly on the patterns of escalating control seen across Europe. The EU’s “Democracy Shield” and broader Digital Services Act framework already pressure platforms into systemic content demotion under the guise of risk assessments.

Those tools have chilled speech across the continent. Germany’s move represents the next logical escalation: not just removing content, but ensuring state-aligned sources dominate what users actually see.

The EU’s €140 million fine slapped on X for alleged transparency violations formed part of a sustained assault. Musk responded forcefully, pointing to EU commissars’ role in stifling debate that could have mitigated Europe’s self-inflicted wounds.

That fine wasn’t about protecting users—it was punishment for refusing to play ball with narrative gatekeepers.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s calls for draconian measures and a full ‘Ministry of Truth’ apparatus further illustrate the continental appetite for control.

In the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has pushed for a dedicated government disinformation unit, while the Online Safety Act has emerged as a comprehensive censors’ charter.

These developments show how temporary “emergency” powers metastasize into permanent architecture for managing reality.

The Digital Leviathan rose precisely to handle challenges like mass migration criticism and policy failures that elites preferred to keep hidden.

When combined with this algorithmic favoritism, the strategy becomes clear: starve challengers of reach while subsidizing compliant voices through forced visibility.

And then there are also punishments ready, such as debanking, to discourage journalists from stepping outside the approved thresholds.

Barack Obama’s infamous suggestion of a social media Ministry of Truth feels less like hyperbole and more like prophecy when viewing these coordinated efforts.

The backfire was predictable. Heavy censorship created martyrs, exposed hypocrisy, and drove users toward platforms prioritizing free expression. Musk’s acquisition of X exemplified this shift. Now, regulators adapt by gaming the very recommendation systems that exposed their weaknesses.

Advocates for this German law claim it counters “disinformative, polarizing” content. Yet the track record of the “trusted” outlets they seek to elevate undermines that claim entirely. The BBC provides a textbook case, with scandals ranging from manipulated editing exposed in the looming Trump lawsuit to further outrageous actions that continue to erode public confidence.

Public broadcasters aren’t neutral arbiters; they’re funded arms of the establishment view.

Germany’s own state media offers equally damning examples, including the fake AI-generated clip of ICE troops arresting a migrant family and systematic slander campaigns against figures like Charlie Kirk after his assassination.

These aren’t isolated lapses but symptoms of systemic narrative enforcement. When public funding meets ideological capture, journalism dies and propaganda thrives.

This aligns with long-standing critiques: legacy outlets function as extensions of the information state. Their declining relevance stems not from competition alone but from audiences recognizing the disconnect between reported reality and lived experience—particularly on immigration, economics, and cultural transformation.

Boosting them algorithmically won’t restore credibility; it will only highlight their dependence on artificial life support.

Parallel to algorithmic rigging, direct assaults on X continue under familiar banners. UK government schemes to restrict or shutter the platform over Grok’s humorous roasts, alongside outright ban threats, expose the cynicism.

Official claims of “protecting children” crumble under scrutiny, as these efforts target political speech far more than genuine safeguarding.

Spain’s far-left coalition similarly floated limitations, revealing a broader European discomfort with unmoderated conversation.

These pretexts enable deeper control. EU chat control proposals threaten end-to-end encryption, effectively ending private digital communication.

UK moves toward mandatory digital IDs with biometric tracking, combined with age verification theater, form pieces of a surveillance mosaic.

Government censorship of the internet is worse than ever in the UK, with the disinfo unit shifting focus from lockdown skeptics to mass migration critics.

Authoritarianism arrives not with tanks but with logins and compliance portals.

Germany stands at the forefront of this crackdown. Courts contemplating speaking bans against prominent politicians, alongside convictions of ordinary citizens for blunt criticism—like a pensioner penalized for calling a Green minister an “idiot”—signal a nation abandoning its post-war free speech commitments.

This environment makes the algorithmic proposal even more sinister. When the state already criminalizes mild dissent, empowering it to curate digital visibility creates a closed loop of approved thought. Independent voices face compounded marginalization online.

The German initiative forms part of a continent-wide offensive against digital liberty. These measures share a common thread: elites viewing open information flows as existential threats rather than democratic necessities. The result is a managed internet where “safety” justifies surveillance and “plurality” means enforced uniformity.

Thankfully, pushback is mounting. Concepts for a genuinely censorship-resistant internet—emphasizing decentralization, open protocols, and user sovereignty—offer technical pathways beyond centralized control. Legal and political pressure remains essential.

The Trump administration has signaled zero tolerance for European overreach. America stands ready to smash these UK and EU internet crackdowns.

Considerations of travel bans targeting officials enforcing speech restrictions, and actual entry prohibitions against anti-free-speech globalists demonstrate leverage available to free societies.

These actions protect not just American platforms but the principle of open discourse worldwide.

The ultimate solution lies in rejecting the premise that information must be managed by self-appointed State guardians. Platforms succeeding through transparency and user choice expose the fragility of legacy models. Citizens increasingly demand accountability: defund captured public broadcasters, enforce viewpoint neutrality where subsidies exist, and prioritize constitutional protections over bureaucratic comfort.

Continued overreach will accelerate the very trends regulators fear. Each attempt at algorithmic rigging further erodes trust, driving innovation toward decentralized alternatives and reinforcing public skepticism.

The information awakening wasn’t a temporary glitch—it represents a fundamental realignment toward truth over narrative. Musk’s X stands as proof: refusing to bend created the space for genuine debate that elites now scramble to recapture through backdoor algorithmic controls.

Europe’s elites face a choice: adapt to a world where ideas compete freely or double down on control and risk greater backlash. The battle for the digital public square will define the coming decade.

Platforms and citizens prioritizing unfiltered exchange hold the advantage, provided they maintain vigilance against these evolving threats—from the German proposal and EU Democracy Shield to UK child protection pretexts and domestic speech prosecutions.

Free societies thrive on open debate, not engineered consensus. The push to game algorithms in favor of propaganda houses won’t save failing narratives; it will only hasten their irrelevance while empowering alternatives rooted in user trust and technological freedom.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 03:30

Leftist Party Wants Voting Rights For All Foreigners Who've Lived In Germany For 5 Years

Leftist Party Wants Voting Rights For All Foreigners Who've Lived In Germany For 5 Years

Via Remix News,

Germany’s Left Party is pushing for a major overhaul of the German electoral system by proposing that foreign residents without a German passport be granted voting rights after five years of legal residency.

To achieve this, the Left faction in the Bundestag has submitted a formal application demanding that anyone residing legally in the country for at least five years be permitted to vote in federal elections, irrespective of their nationality.

The move would serve as a major electoral boost for left-wing parties, with foreigners overwhelmingly voting for these parties when given the opportunity. Data from the Federal Statistical Office cited in the motion reveals that over 14 million people living in Germany in 2025 lacked German citizenship, a figure that includes roughly 5 million EU citizens. This foreign population has resided in the country for an average of 15 years. In other words, this pool of potential voters for the left is massive.

The initiative also urges the federal government to collaborate with individual states to implement identical changes for state and municipal elections, according to German news outlet Tagesspiegel. The party argues that the current system suffers from an expanding democratic deficit due to the fact that non-German nationals are systematically blocked from participating in federal, state, and most local elections.

The Left finds this exclusion “intolerable, “ given the democratic principles outlined in the Basic Law, arguing that it ignores the reality of Germany as an “immigration society.”

Addressing potential legal hurdles, the Left Party points out that while the Federal Constitutional Court blocked voting rights for foreigners back in 1990, this stance deserves reconsideration due to shifting global dynamics and the fact that EU citizens have since gained local voting rights. They also highlight a linguistic nuance in the constitution, observing that the Basic Law uses the word “people“ in critical sections rather than explicitly restricting terms to “the German people.”

The proposal, which is officially titled “Introduce voting rights for foreigners,” was initiated by a group of lawmakers including Ferat Koçak and the wider Left Party parliamentary group, with signatures from group leaders Heidi Reichinnek and Sören Pellmann.

This motion continues a long-standing political campaign by the Left Party, which references its own 2014 draft legislation as part of a multi-year effort to expand suffrage.

Recently, Elif Eralp, the party’s top candidate in Berlin, echoed these demands.

This has not even been the most radical demand from the Left. In 2023, then German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser proposed to give asylum seekers the right to vote in local state elections after just six months in Germany. The program, if implemented, would have translated into millions of new voters overnight.

At the time, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party was immediately critical of what it described as an attempt to stack the vote with migrants, releasing a statement that read:

“Interior Minister Faeser (SPD), as the top candidate in the Hessian state elections, is campaigning for local voting rights for all people who have lived in Germany for ‘longer than six months.’ This means that supposed ‘refugees’ from Afghanistan, Syria or Turkey would also be allowed to vote – even without German citizenship.

“The German passport is thus turned into a piece of junk. But above all: Faeser and the SPD want to attract people who have no connection to Germany at all as new groups of voters. This is not surprising, because the locals who are ridiculed as ‘non-migrants’ are running away from (Chanceller Olaf) Scholz’s SPD.”

Under current constitutional rules, federal voting rights are restricted to German citizens aged 18 and older, while Berlin state elections require voters to be at least 16. The only current exception exists at the municipal level, where EU citizens can vote for district parliaments.

In response to such demands, the Federal Ministry of the Interior website states that “Migrants living in the Federal Republic of Germany for many years have the opportunity to become naturalized citizens under German citizenship law. In doing so, they also acquire the right to vote.”

However, the Left faction argues this pathway is insufficient and the requirements for citizenship are too burdensome.

The right has long contended that the left is using mass immigration as a tool to solidify political power. Foreigners are notoriously prone to voting for left-wing parties, with the logic being that more left-wing policies means more immigration for their fellow countrymen and more social welfare benefits for them and their families.

Many of these foreign groups often tend to vote quite conservatively in their own nations while shifting to the left in Western nations, such as the case of the Turkish community in Germany, which has approximately 1.5 million individuals with dual citizenship between Turkey and Germany. Half of these Turks vote for strongman Islamist leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkish elections and then shift their vote to the left in Germany.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 02:00

NATO Warns Russia's Hybrid War Is Targeting Europe's Energy Grid

NATO Warns Russia's Hybrid War Is Targeting Europe's Energy Grid

Authored by Simon Watkins via OilPrice.com,

  • European officials fear Russia’s “grey war” is entering a more dangerous phase, with gas pipelines, electricity interconnectors, offshore networks, and subsea infrastructure increasingly vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks.

  • Security sources say Moscow is escalating pressure because the Ukraine war is becoming harder to sustain militarily and economically.

  • Recent incidents involving Russian-linked vessels and surveillance operations in the Baltic and North Seas have heightened concerns that Europe’s energy grid is becoming a frontline target in the broader confrontation with Russia.

While many may be focusing on the transfer of nuclear weapons from Russia to Belarus on NATO’s northeastern Baltic States border, the bloc's security apparatus is at least as concerned about imminent attacks on the region's energy infrastructure, a senior source who works very closely with the European Union's (E.U.'s) energy security complex exclusively told OilPrice.com last week.

“Russia’s effectively been at war with the West since February 2007 when [Russian President Vladimir] Putin condemned NATO’s expansion to the East, which was followed by a huge cyber-attack against Estonia,” he said. “Then we had the beginning of the land pushback, with Russia’s war on Georgia in 2008, where we [the West] did nothing to dissuade him from further actions Westwards, then the first invasion of Ukraine and annexation on Crimea in 2014, where we did nothing much again [as analysed in full in my latest book on the new global oil market order], and then the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022,” he added. “We’re into the final phase now, in which we’re making a stand, and Russia’s testing how resolved we are,” he underlined.

So, what happens next in terms of Europe’s crucial energy infrastructure?

“We expect hybrid attacks of the sort we’ve seen in recent years, and more direct physical ones, which have also increased in recent months, primarily against gas infrastructure, electricity cables, offshore networks, and control systems,” said the source. “The full array of these measures has already been used by Russia in Ukraine, so they’re ready to roll out whenever Putin wants -- it’s just a question of how far he’s willing to push the boundaries before he thinks we’ll react with true deterrent force,” he added. As also highlighted by the E.U. Institute for Security Studies, there have been several incidents since Russia’s full-blown invasion of Ukraine in 2022 in which undersea energy cables were severed by Russian-affiliated vessels. For example, in December 2024, Russian shadow fleet vessel Eagle S was apprehended by Finnish authorities after severing EstLink 2, a critical electricity interconnector linking Finland and Estonia. The ship had military-grade detection hardware in its hull, indicating a direct, premeditated, and malicious attack on European energy infrastructure. Similarly, a Russian vessel, the Scanlark, was detained by authorities after being caught launching surveillance drones and carrying spying equipment near the Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Station in Finland.

“Subsea electricity interconnectors and gas pipelines in the Baltic and North Seas are also highly vulnerable to the same style of attacks, with the same capabilities also available for the targeting of power grids to trigger cascading regional blackouts across the highly interconnected European electricity grids,” the E.U. source told OilPrice.com last week. Indeed, an attempted dual nature energy-telecommunications hit was tried by Russia within the last couple of months, as revealed by the British Ministry of Defence on 9 April. Three Russian submarines were mapping and surveying vital gas pipelines in the North Sea, and undersea electricity interconnectors vital to trading power with mainland Europe. “This is all part of Russia’s ongoing grey war with the West, focused on Europe right now, which aims to critically undermine us without crossing the boundary that triggers Article 5 and outright war between NATO and Russia,” the source underlined.

The key reason why there has been a surge in the scale and scope of Russia’s grey war in recent weeks is that Putin thinks time is running out for his ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine, according to security sources in Washington and London exclusively spoken to by OilPrice.com last week and exclusively confirmed by a very high-level Moscow-based source in the current Russian Administration. Part of Putin’s belief comes from the burn rate of Russian soldiers on the frontline, with only 70% of those killed now able to be replaced by new recruits. “This is the big problem, because it means that the [recruitment] net will have to be widened to areas that could cause political problems,” said the Moscow source last week. In this context, much of the burden of the war to date has been borne by Russia’s ethnic minorities and those from poor regions, for whom the relatively high military salaries and death benefits are life-changing money for them and their families, whether they live or die. So far, the more affluent, better-connected, and more highly educated ‘middle class’ Russians from the major metropolitan hubs -- specifically Moscow and St Petersburg -- have been largely insulated from the war. But, with Putin’s choice now being either an end to the war on Ukrainian terms or extending recruitment to the previously protected class, this could change, although both possibilities have been prepared for.

On the one hand, Putin said on 9 May that the Ukraine war is ‘coming to an end’ -- the first time in over four years of fighting that he has used this specific phrasing. 

On the other hand, Russia rolled out a unified digital conscription registry last May, which sends draft notices electronically via state portals.

The likelihood of major protests erupting if this system is used across Russia’s major metropolitan hubs may have been foreshadowed by the Kremlin’s drive to isolate the country’s internet, allowing it to suppress the kind of widespread dissent that fuelled the Arab Spring uprisings.

There are three other factors in the ‘why now’ equation for Russia, according to the Washington, London, and E.U. sources, again confirmed by the very highly placed source in Moscow.

  • The most immediate catalyst was the unblocking of the €90 billion E.U. package for Ukraine, following the removal from power of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who acted as Putin’s de facto blocking vote on E.U. legislation the Russian premier did not want. Two-thirds of this money is strictly earmarked for spending by Ukraine on hard defence assets rather than just keeping the government afloat. Even without this, Ukraine has dramatically expanded its capabilities of hitting key military and civilian infrastructure targets deep inside Russia for the first time, with repeated hits on key sites connected to its ability to monetise its oil and gas resources by exports. Last year, according to industry figures, Russian oil firms suffered RUB1 trillion roubles (US$12.9 billion) in combined losses across 120 recorded energy facility strikes. But since January alone this year, Russia has already lost over US$7 billion in oil revenue, driven by the prolonged downtime of facilities and steep export reductions from disrupted Baltic Sea shipping hubs like Ust-Luga and Primorsk. Worse still for Putin is that his long-running project to keep U.S. President Donald Trump on its side has backfired as, no longer under the shackles of U.S. arms supply deals, Ukraine is no able to keep hitting any target it wants inside Russia up to 1,200 miles, putting over 70% of the Russian population within Ukraine’s crosshairs. Putin knows that this is only going to get worse, as Ukraine continues to develop the range and accuracy of its own missiles and drones with the funding from the new €90bn package.

  • The second reason for Russia stepping up its pressure on the West is that Europe is moving ahead with new sanctions designed to end all imports of Russian gas and oil and cut off Moscow’s access to the financing that supports them. Liquefied natural gas imports will end by the end of this year, natural gas by 30 September next year, and crude oil and petroleum products by the end of next year. To this end, its latest (20th) Sanctions Package, adopted on 23 April, was structured specifically to cut off Russia's financial loopholes and squeeze what remains of its energy revenue. It focuses on eliminating its Shadow Fleet of vessels still transporting Russian oil and gas covertly around the world, and on ending crypto escape routes that allow Russia to use digital assets to circumvent traditional Western banking blocks.

  • And the final reason, again an unintended by-product of Putin’s misjudgement in attempting to use Trump for his maximum benefit to Russia, is that because of Europe’s uncertainty now over the U.S. commitment to NATO’s Article 5, it is rearming at pace, at scale, and in size. Even before this current round of military build-up, the chance of Russia defeating a united European military force -- without the U.S. -- was minimal, which is why Moscow has continued to fight a grey war under the boundary that would trigger outright conflict. But European NATO’s membership has expanded since the Ukraine invasion, and commitments to new spending and realised new expenditure have increased dramatically.

In the end, Europe’s energy grid is no longer just infrastructure — it is the front line.

And Russia’s grey war will keep pressing against it until Moscow is convinced.

European officials fear Russia’s “grey war” is entering a more dangerous phase, with gas pipelines, electricity interconnectors, offshore networks, and subsea infrastructure increasingly vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks. The West is finally prepared to push back in a way that convinces Putin that he must go no further.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 23:25

US Nuclear Recycling Plant Could Extract 100 Times More Energy From Uranium Fuel

US Nuclear Recycling Plant Could Extract 100 Times More Energy From Uranium Fuel

Authored by Georgina Jedikovska via Interesting Engineering,

A US startup has joined forces with the nation's first national laboratory to recycle spent nuclear fuel into energy for fast reactors by using advanced pyroprocessing technology.

New York-based nuclear technology company BLSK Energy announced on May 18 that it had signed a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) in Illinois to commercialize the method.

Used nuclear fuel containers.

Pyroprocessing (or pyrochemical processing) is a high-temperature metallurgical process that could enable the reuse of nuclear fuel. When used with fast reactors, it could extract up to 100 times more energy from uranium.

The company plans to launch a pilot recycling facility by 2034 that would convert nuclear waste into material suitable for advanced fast reactors. "The path ahead is ambitious but achievable," Bruce Landrey, BLSK Energy's managing director and co-founder, said.

Recycling Nuclear Waste

The US has accumulated about 95,000 tonnes (104,000 US tons) of used nuclear fuel. They are currently stored at over 75 locations across the country. However, spent nuclear fuel is radioactive and thermally hot when removed from a reactor.

Moreover, even though up to 96 percent of it is made up of leftover uranium, the main fuel used in nuclear reactors, it also contains radioactive waste products and elements heavier than uranium, like plutonium, which is incredibly hazardous.

While long-delayed plans for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel remain unresolved, the nuclear industry faces another challenge in securing enough fuel for future reactors. Limited fuel supplies and rising costs are both major hurdles for advanced reactor development.

To tackle the challenge, BLSK Energy's pilot recycling facility will use pyrochemical processing to convert nuclear waste into usable reactor fuel. The company gained exclusive access to the technology through its agreement with ANL, which in turn, first developed the process.

The deal further gives the firm access to ANL's experienced nuclear reprocessing scientists, engineers, as well as research facilities. "BLSK has the rare opportunity to address the two critical issues facing nuclear power; answering the question, 'what about the waste?' while delivering a reliable cost-effective supply of fuel for advanced reactors," Landrey continued.

A New Fuel Plant

Pyroprocessing uses molten salts and electricity to separate and recover valuable nuclear materials from highly radioactive waste. It is believed to offer improved efficiency and proliferation resistance.

The technology would reduce waste volumes while extracting additional energy from used fuel. When paired with fast reactors, it could reportedly unlock up to 100 times more energy from uranium than traditional reactors.

According to ANL, the technology could provide a long-term supply of affordable uranium fuel. By recycling all actinides, radioactive chemical elements that follow actinium in the Periodic Table, the process could significantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced.

It could also lower the time the waste must remain isolated from roughly 300,000 years to 300 years. "Having the IP and facility design as a starting point places our effort at a high level of maturity, improving certainty through reduced technical, regulatory, and investment risk," Landrey concluded in a press release.

ANL's support will be led by Yoon Il Chang, PhD, a senior nuclear project director and ANL distinguished fellow, who created the pyroprocessing technology.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 22:35

Threat Of 2030s Lunar War Has NASA, Elon Musk Racing To Build Major Moon Base

Threat Of 2030s Lunar War Has NASA, Elon Musk Racing To Build Major Moon Base

NASA unveiled plans earlier this week for a lunar base as the U.S. finds itself locked in a multi-domain race with China, one that stretches across energy, compute, weapons, drones, trade, rare earths, shipbuilding, and now the Moon.

The next front with Beijing is no longer just about returning humans to the lunar surface. It is about establishing permanent infrastructure, securing access to lunar resources, and eventually determining whether the U.S. or China will set the rules for space in the 2030s and beyond. 

Elon Musk commented on NASA's X release about the new lunar base, saying, "Time to build a major base on the Moon!"

So why the sudden urgency for NASA to establish a lunar base?

A new Mitchell Institute policy report says the U.S. Space Force should prepare to put active-duty Guardians on space stations and eventually on the Moon to counter China's military-led space ambitions.

The paper noted: "With a potential 'in-person' lunar conflict with China as the contextual touchstone, the U.S. must begin a pragmatic, multi-decade effort, leveraging its Space Test Course (STC), as well as partnerships with NASA and commercial space companies, to deliver the skills, tools, and concepts needed for future Title 10 activities to enforce U.S. spacepower-enabling norms and standards." It added, "These efforts will require additional funding from Congress for both U.S. Space Force human spaceflight opportunities and residencies at commercial space stations."

The 22-page policy report frames the Moon as the next great-power battleground, warning that competition over lunar resources, territory, logistics routes, and future space infrastructure could eventually turn into conflict.

"Competition for control of lunar resources and territory will likely reach a tipping point, at which time the modern-day space race could turn into conflict. The anarchic nature of the Moon combined with China's record of belligerent use of hard power yields a predictable future where United States lunar interests are put at risk," the paper warned.

The think tank noted, "U.S. national security, strength, and prosperity are dependent on securing space dominance in ways that require Title 10 authorities, to include space and lunar habitation." 

In other words, astronauts and commercial crews would not have the training, legal authority, or warfighting mandate needed to defend U.S. lunar interests. 

From spy-movie parody Austin Powers ... 

Lunar wars in the 2030s? 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 22:10

Judge Declines To Block Trump's Order On Mail-In Voting

Judge Declines To Block Trump's Order On Mail-In Voting

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on May 28 allowed President Donald Trump's administration to implement an executive order imposing restrictions on mail-in voting.

U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, based in Washington, rejected a request from Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), for an injunction against the order.

US President Donald Trump walks towards the Rose Garden for a "Rose Garden Club" dinner in honor of Police Week at the White House in Washington, DC, on May 11, 2026. Photo by Kent NISHIMURA / AFP via Getty Images

Absent an injunction, the federal government would compile lists of U.S. citizens and would coerce states into only allowing people on the lists to register to vote and vote in elections, even though the sources for the list are known to be deficient, plaintiffs argued in court filings.

Nichols disagreed, writing in a 26-page decision that while the order directed federal officials to compile the lists, it "does not mandate any action by a State once a List has been transmitted to it, and in any event, no infrastructure for compilation or transmission of the Lists has been established."

The situation may change if the U.S. Postal Service issues a final rule affecting plaintiffs, or if the government develops lists that erroneously omit certain individuals, the judge said.

"Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur," he wrote. "Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted."

The development means Trump and the federal government can implement the order, but the case will continue.

Trump signed the order on March 31. It states that only U.S. citizens can vote in federal elections and that new measures were necessary to "enhance election integrity" for mail-in ballots, which have become increasingly used in recent years.

It directed the secretary of homeland security to compile lists of adult citizens living in each state and to transmit the lists to each state. It also said that the U.S. Postal Service shall propose new rules specifying that all ballots must be mailed in envelopes marked for elections, and that the service "shall not transmit mail-in or absentee ballots from any individual unless those individuals" are on the citizenship lists.

"The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible what has been going on," Trump said when signing the order. "If you don't have honest voting, you can't have, really, a nation."

Democrats said the order exceeded a president's authority and disrupted state oversight of elections.

"President Trump has tried again and again to rewrite election rules for his own perceived partisan advantage," their complaint said, noting that a similar order from Trump, signed in 2025, has been blocked by courts.

Government lawyers told Nichols in a recent filing that the litigation was premature, given that agencies had not taken any steps to implement the order.

A woman casts her mail-in vote at an official ballot drop box in Washington on Nov. 5, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 21:45

Visualizing The Beef-Margin Bloodbath Behind Tyson CEO's Exit

Visualizing The Beef-Margin Bloodbath Behind Tyson CEO's Exit

Tyson Foods CEO Donnie King is stepping down after five years at the helm of the nation's largest meatpacker, with the stock having languished under his tenure as the company battled some of the worst cattle-market conditions in a generation.

Jeff Schomburger, a long-time Tyson board member, will become president and CEO on October 4. King, a 43-year Tyson veteran, will remain on the board and help with the transition beginning in July.

"The board and I are confident in Jeff Schomburger's ability to lead Tyson Foods into its next chapter of growth," said John Tyson, Chairman of the Board of Tyson Foods.

He added, "The Board looks forward to working with Jeff to drive sustainable growth, enhance shareholder value, and build on the strong momentum Tyson Foods has established."

"Donnie King's long tenure at Tyson Foods, including his leadership as CEO, has strengthened our business and shaped our culture," Tyson said. "We are grateful for his steady guidance and look forward to continuing to leverage his expertise within the Board."

Shares of Tyson have severely underperformed under King's tenure, down around 18% as of Wednesday's close.

King's exit comes after Tyson navigated one of the tightest U.S. cattle markets in decades, which pressured its beef business and contributed to losses in the segment.

There is some good news for Schomburger: The U.S. cattle herd rebuilding phase is underway, as initial 2026 data show a higher year-over-year heifer retention rate, according to Rabobank analysts.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/28/2026 - 21:20

Pages