The Insider Report from The New American

Is Water Becoming the Next Financial Asset Class?

For centuries, wars, diplomacy, and economic development have been shaped by access to land, minerals, energy, and water. Today, a new development is emerging that could fundamentally change how societies think about natural resources: the financialization and tokenization of natural resources.

Asset tokenization refers to the process of converting ownership rights in physical assets into digital tokens that can be traded on blockchain-based platforms. Multiple firms now specialize in tokenizing natural resources and commodity-linked assets. Some platforms explicitly advertise the tokenization of energy, commodities, and natural resources to create tradable digital financial instruments. Others are developing systems for tokenized water rights, water allocations, and water-transfer markets.

At the same time, water itself is becoming more visible as an economic asset. In 2019, Nasdaq launched the Nasdaq Veles California Water Index (NQH2O), designed to track water prices in California’s water markets. The index was created to support price discovery and facilitate financial instruments tied to water markets. Water futures based on the index later began trading through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Supporters argue that such markets help farmers, municipalities, and businesses hedge against water shortages and price volatility. Critics, however, worry that turning water into a financial asset could encourage speculation and place essential resources under greater control of investors rather than local communities.

Those concerns have become significant enough that some lawmakers have sought restrictions on water-rights speculation. They argue that water should be treated as a public necessity rather than as a commodity subject to financial trading.

Meanwhile, another major trend is unfolding: the explosive growth of artificial intelligence infrastructure and hyperscale data centers. Many of these facilities require substantial electricity and cooling systems, creating new demand for water resources in some regions. (Ironically, the same blockchain economic system that seeks to tokenize things such as water is dependent on these hyperscale data centers, which is placing demands on that very resource.) Technology companies are increasingly experimenting with recycled water, closed-loop cooling systems, and alternative cooling technologies, but debates continue over how much water future AI infrastructure will require.

Wastewater is also being reimagined. Traditionally viewed as a disposal problem, wastewater is increasingly regarded as a valuable resource that can yield reclaimed water, fertilizer, methane, and industrial feedstocks. Modern treatment systems can recover usable water and other economically valuable outputs from waste streams.

Taken together, these developments raise important questions. If water rights become increasingly tradable, if wastewater becomes a source of recoverable assets, and if blockchain technology enables fractional ownership of natural resources, then future water systems may look very different from those of the past.

In Central Texas, Elon Musk, a huge proponent of the new AI infrastructure, owns expanding business operations that have become intertwined with regional wastewater infrastructure planning. Local officials in the city of Bastrop, for instance, pursued agreements to connect facilities from Musk’s SpaceX and The Boring Company to Bastrop’s growing municipal wastewater system, including a newly expanded treatment plant designed to accommodate what it claims to be the area’s rapid population growth.

But there are questions. First, if newly expanded treatment plants are drawing water away from local communities and not returning it to the location of origin, will this not be a method that drains aquifers under surrounding U.S. cities? Second, if this water is siphoned off, might it not be extracted from surrounding municipalities (which will be told that it’s worthless waste, anyway), while it might be tokenized and either used for data centers or sold on the commodities markets? Lastly, will other big AI moguls begin partnerships with wastewater treatment plants (upon the pretext that beefing up their facilities is related to population growth) while using it to deplete water tables and gain control of local water supplies?

Microsoft, for one, has pledged to help finance wastewater-treatment expansion associated with its data-center development in Arizona (agreeing to contribute approximately $36 million toward expansion of the city’s 157th Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant), while Google has committed hundreds of millions of dollars toward water, wastewater, and water-reuse initiatives in communities where it operates data centers. Amazon has likewise partnered with utilities and water-management firms to develop systems that convert treated wastewater into cooling water for its facilities, reducing reliance on freshwater sources. Meta has generally focused on securing long-term water supplies for its data centers, though some of its projects have prompted public debate about local water resources. This amounts to a growing trend in which large technology companies are becoming stakeholders in municipal water and wastewater infrastructure as AI-driven demand for computing power continues to rise. We can be sure they have financial incentives to do so. — Rebecca Terrell

Patriots Gather at JBS Conference in Salt Lake City

On June 5-6, members of The John Birch Society and other patriots gathered in Salt Lake City for the annual JBS Conference, where they were energized and had fellowship with one another.

Multiple current and former elected officials attended the event, including incumbent state legislators from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Several attendees joined the JBS as members.

Speakers at the conference included Robert Brown, on James Madison’s warnings against an Article V convention; Phil Lyman, on election interference; Patrick Wood, on technocracy; Alex Newman, on America’s biblical heritage; JP Cortez, on restoring sound money; and Catherine Austin Fitts, on threats to financial freedom. JBS CEO Wayne Morrow concluded the conference by highlighting the JBS’s latest updates and accomplishments.

The conference highlighted practical solutions to the problems facing the United States. On Friday evening, for example, a panel of current and former elected officials discussed why and how to get involved in local and state politics, followed by presentations about The New American’s Freedom Index. And Eagle Forum’s Janine Hansen discussed practical steps patriots can take to stop resolutions applying for an Article V convention.

Recordings of the presentations will soon be available at JBS.org/conference.

Only through informed citizens taking concerted action can we protect our constitutional Republic — and The John Birch Society is the most effective vehicle for educating fellow Americans and getting them involved in our epic undertaking. Will you answer the call? Get started at JBS.org/join. — Peter Rykowski

The Rainbow Revolution Runs Into Resistance

Welcome to June, the month the perversion mob celebrates as “Pride Month.” Rainbow flags galore are billowing in downtowns from sea to shining sea, streaming services are pushing their perverted shows with extra zeal, and media outlets are ramping up reports on anything related to gays, bi’s, “trans,” and the overall confused, hexed, or mentally ill.

There are signs, however, that not all is well in the LGBTQ PR department. Americans are waning in support for deviancy, thanks in part to this group’s ever-growing laundry list of grievances and classifications, its lewd public displays, and its tyrannical demands for celebration and special treatment. They have overreached, and Americans are tired of it. There may be another reason for what is happening here, but more on that later.

The bottom line is, it appears that “gay” fatigue has set in. We noticed this trend emerge last year, and made some observations in this report.

This year, we look at additional data points that suggest support for deviancy has indeed peaked and we may be on track to take back some cultural territory.

For starters, five states have decided to reject Pride Month altogether. Over in the Volunteer State, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed a resolution designating June 2026 as Nuclear Family Month. Indiana’s governor, Mike Braun, issued a proclamation also dubbing June Nuclear Family Month. Arkansas Governor Sarah Sanders made a similar move. She declared June “Fidelity Month,” as in “fidelity to God, family, community, and country,” which, she accurately notes, “contributes to human flourishing and supports a healthy, stable, well-ordered society.”

Over in the beehive state, Utah Governor Spencer Cox echoed Sanders’ move, also issuing a proclamation recognizing June as Fidelity Month. And in Alabama, Governor Kay Ivey designated June “Strong Families Month.” Like Sanders, Ivey included a nugget of age-old wisdom in her proclamation, writing that “homes led by stable parents, a father and a mother, provide children with the structure and discipline necessary to succeed.”

The ideas in these declarations are as true and old as time itself. Tennessee’s bill points out that “the nuclear family is God’s perfect design for humanity.” And in her proclamation, Ivey reminds citizens that stable families cultivate successful children. But she goes a step further, taking an extra jab at the feminist cohort, the pioneers of the LGBTQ mob. “Fathers are the head of the household,” the proclamation says. “They play an essential role in the development of children by providing leadership, protection and support that help shape strong families and stronger communities.” There is no shortage of metrics suggesting a strong correlation between fatherlessness and higher probabilities of imprisonment, drug use, suicide, rape crimes, and poor school performance.

A Gallup poll published Wednesday also suggests people are tiring of the perversion mob. “After two decades of rising support for LGBTQ+ issues, U.S. attitudes have plateaued and begun to slide back modestly,” the introduction says. “Approval of same-sex marriage, moral acceptance of gay and lesbian relations, and endorsement of gender changes are all down from peaks reached in the early 2020s.”

Support for “gay marriage” has fallen six points in less than three years. The percentage of Americans who view homosexual relations as moral is lower than it’s been in a decade. And approval for the blatantly insane transgender psyop has dropped six points.

This is all contrary to the prevailing trend that dominated the 21st century. The Gallup poll notes that “the percentage of U.S. adults in favor of legalizing same-sex ‘marriage’ increased by 44 points between 1996 and 2022, from 27 percent to 71 percent, before dipping to 69 percent in 2024 and continuing to decline.” As for homosexual relationships, in 2001, 40 percent of Americans thought it moral. By 2022, that number had nearly doubled, reaching 71 percent. But today it has dropped to 64 percent.

The main demographic to blame for declining approval of deviancy is Republicans. “For example, in 2021 and 2022, 55 percent of Republicans said they favored legal same-sex marriage, but today, the figure is 37 percent,” according to Gallup. Even Independents are tiring, as their “support has dropped six points, to 67 percent.” Meanwhile, Democrats haven’t budged. Their “views are the same as in 2022 (87% in favor).”

This is one of the few examples suggesting that conservatives are somewhat interested in conserving something. As Gallup noted, for two decades that wasn’t the case.

Gallup blames “conservative leaders” who pushed “back against diversity, equity and inclusion programs” for the growing disapproval of cultural depravity. The trouble with this analysis is that it puts the cart before the horse. Yes, the Donald Trump administration made a lot of moves to get rid of DEI programs and undermine state-sanctioned racism and perversion. But it did that because people elected Trump, in large part, to do exactly that. Cultural degradation was a key driver for many into the Trump coalition last election. People wanted a leader who would stop the madness Democrats were fueling. In essence, support for deviancy isn’t declining because politicians ended state-sanctioned racism and perversion. It’s declining because the people voted them into power to do exactly that.

Read the rest of this article by senior editor Paul Dragu at TheNewAmerican.com.

House Passes Symbolic War Powers Resolution on Iran

On June 3, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a war powers resolution directing President Donald Trump to withdraw American forces from hostilities with Iran or obtain explicit congressional approval to continue. The vote was 215-208, with all Democrats and four Republicans — Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Penn.), Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), and Tom Barrett (R-Mich.) — supporting the measure. Republican leaders argued the resolution would weaken U.S. negotiating leverage and embolden adversaries.

The resolution, led by Democrats and invoking the 1973 War Powers Resolution, specifically addresses “Operation Epic Fury,” which began in late February with U.S. and Israeli strikes targeting Iran. The fighting has resulted in at least 15 U.S. troop deaths, significant Iranian casualties, disrupted oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, and higher global energy prices.

This marks the first time the House has successfully passed such a measure against the Iran operations. However, its practical effect is largely symbolic. Concurrent resolutions such as this do not require a presidential signature (and thus cannot be vetoed), but they also carry less binding force than joint resolutions.

The measure now heads to the Senate, where its prospects are uncertain considering Republican resistance. The Senate’s response will reveal which of our elected representatives understand that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants only Congress (not the president) the power to declare war. Additionally, the War Powers Act requires the president to terminate military involvement in a conflict after 60 days unless Congress authorizes it. The Iranian conflict has continued without such authorization.

Critics of endless engagements see the resolution as an overdue assertion of congressional oversight, while public support for the conflict has reportedly eroded in the face of economic ripple effects. Meanwhile, energy markets remain sensitive to any escalation or prolonged disruption in the region.

While the resolution is unlikely to immediately alter operations on the ground, it adds political pressure for de-escalation or negotiated settlements ahead of the 2026 midterms. — Rebecca Terrell

Texas Enforces English-only Requirement for Commercial Driver’s Licenses

Texas is moving to enforce a requirement that holders of commercial driver’s licenses understand English.

On June 1, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) announced that “all Texas CDL [commercial driver’s license] and commercial learner permit (CLP) knowledge examinations will be administered in English only,” removing the Spanish-language option that had previously existed.

DPS explained:

This change aligns Texas’ testing procedures with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) English language proficiency requirements and will help ensure that all newly licensed commercial drivers have the communication skills necessary to operate these vehicles safely on Texas roads. Previously, CDL knowledge tests were offered in both English and Spanish. The hands-on CDL skills test, which includes pre-trip inspection, basic control skills and the road test, has always been conducted in English only.

That same day, the department announced separately that it had received “approval by the [FMCSA] to resume the issuance of non-domiciled [CDLs] and [CLPs] for individuals with H-2A (Temporary Agricultural Workers) status.” DPS stopped issuing licenses for multiple categories of migrants — including H-2A visa holders, refugees, and DACA recipients — in September 2025, and this announcement partially reverses the suspension.

DPS’s announcement is only the latest step taken by Texas and the federal government in cracking down on foreign commercial drivers who don’t speak English. On April 28, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to enforce English-language requirements for commercial drivers, and on September 4, 2025, Texas Governor Greg Abbott ordered DPS to enforce those federal requirements. Earlier this year, the FMCSA implemented new rules to strengthen the English-language requirements.

Texas officials have pursued additional enforcement measures. In November 2025, DPS imposed photo-identification requirements on vehicle registrations and renewals, an effort to prevent illegal aliens from owning vehicles. And Attorney General Ken Paxton announced in April 2026 that his office is investigating “numerous trucking schools for endangering Texans by providing inadequate commercial driver training, including to non-English speakers.”

Texas’ crackdown on illegal-alien and other non-English-speaking commercial drivers demonstrates how states can — and must — take action themselves to combat mass migration. Constitutionally, authority over immigration resides with the states. Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution grant the federal government authority over immigration — only naturalization. States have allowed the federal government to unconstitutionally usurp their authority on a wide range of topics, including immigration, and they must reclaim that authority — as Texas briefly did during the Biden administration.

Unfortunately, Texas’ actions are happening in compliance with — and with permission from — the FMCSA, an unconstitutional federal agency. Instead of subserviently obeying the federal government — even to implement beneficial policies — Texas should reclaim its sovereign authority and govern independently from unconstitutional federal dictates. — Peter Rykowski

Trump Administration Scraps Controversial $1.8 Billion “Anti-Weaponization” Fund Amid Court Challenges

The Trump administration has halted its newly announced $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” bowing to congressional Republican opposition and federal court intervention. The fund, unveiled by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on May 18 as part of a settlement resolving President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns, aimed to compensate individuals who claim they have been victims of government “lawfare” and weaponization under prior administrations.

The settlement saw Trump and his family entities drop their claims in exchange for a formal apology from the government but no direct monetary damages. Instead, the DOJ directed nearly $1.8 billion from the perpetual Judgment Fund, traditionally used for settling legal claims against the U.S. government, into this new program.

Critics quickly labeled it a “slush fund” for Trump allies. Some shrieked over the possibility of pardoned J6ers being compensated, while others pointed out a lack of congressional oversight. Senate Republicans, wary of the political optics ahead of midterm considerations, balked at attaching the fund to must-pass legislation. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) publicly expressed opposition, stating it needed to be removed to advance border-security priorities.

Legal challenges compounded the political pressure. A federal judge in Virginia issued a temporary restraining order on May 30, halting implementation and any payouts pending further review, with a hearing scheduled for June 12. The DOJ announced it would comply with the court order while “strongly disagreeing” with the ruling, emphasizing the fund’s openness to all Americans regardless of political affiliation.

By early June, reports from multiple outlets had indicated the administration was reconsidering and ultimately planning to drop the fund entirely. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche reportedly informed lawmakers of the decision, clearing the path for stalled immigration funding bills. No payouts have been made, and the program faces expiration timelines in 2028 if revived. — Rebecca Terrell

Global Pushback Against Central Bank Digital Currencies

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently confirmed that the Trump administration has taken the idea of a centralized digital currency “off the table.” He stated there would be no Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) under this administration, viewing digital versions of fiat currency as a potential first step toward financial tracking and surveillance.

This stance reflects state efforts, as well as executive actions and legislative proposals such as the No CBDC Act and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital dollar.

The United States is thereby keeping pace with a wider international pattern of resistance to CBDCs. While many countries explore them for the reputed reasons of efficiency, inclusion, or competition in payments, adoption has been slow and met with skepticism, particularly in advanced economies wary of surveillance risks and financial stability threats.

A prominent example is Switzerland, where 73 percent of voters in a May referendum overwhelmingly approved guaranteeing the permanent availability and use of cash, ensuring it cannot be replaced by virtual money. The initiative, which passed in every canton, directly pushes back against nefarious agendas involving cashless societies and digital-only systems. People rightly view tangible money as a bulwark of liberty and privacy.

Several U.S. states have gone further with outright bans; Florida and Indiana have prohibited CBDC operations within their jurisdictions. Additional states have advanced tight restrictions.

Other advanced economies are deprioritizing retail CBDCs. Canada, Australia, and Norway have scaled back ambitions in recent years. In Europe, while the European Central Bank advances a digital euro pilot, countries such as Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Slovakia have expressed strong reservations. Public opposition often centers on privacy, with surveys showing low support when risks such as spending controls are highlighted.

Emerging market launches have also underperformed. The Bahamas’ Sand Dollar, Jamaica’s JAM-DEX, and Nigeria’s eNaira have seen very low adoption (often under one percent of currency in circulation), with the latter nicknamed “E-vanish” due to inactivity. Venezuela’s petro and the Marshall Islands’ SOV faced similar setbacks or reversals. Challenges include technical issues, public distrust, and competition from private options. — Rebecca Terrell

Neocon John Bolton Is Reportedly Taking a Plea Deal

John Bolton, former national security advisor to President Donald Trump and one of his most prominent Republican critics, is expected to plead guilty to a single felony count of illegally retaining classified national security information, sources confirmed June 4. The plea deal will require Bolton to pay a $2.25 million fine, and carries a sentencing range from zero to 60 months.

Bolton was indicted in October 2025 on 18 counts related to his handling of sensitive government information, which prosecutors said he shared with two relatives in diary-like entries across a seven-year span for possible use in a book he was writing.

The indictment states that from 2018 until August 2025, he shared “more than a thousand pages of his day-to-day activities as National Security Advisor — including information relating to the national defense which was classified up to the TOP SECRET/SCI [Sensitive Compartmented Information] level — with two unauthorized individuals,” identified by multiple outlets as his wife and daughter, neither of whom had security clearances.

FBI agents who raided Bolton’s Washington, D.C., office in August 2025 found folders labeled “confidential” and pages marked “secret,” including those potentially related to weapons of mass destruction.

Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett appeared on Sean Hannity’s program to weigh in on Bolton’s decision. He argued that Bolton pleaded down because the evidence against him was insurmountable, noting that the plea to a single count instead of facing trial on all 18 was driven by the strength of the government’s case. Jarrett added that a judge could still impose up to five years in prison.

Bolton is expected to maintain that he did not take documents with classification markings out of government offices; the plea specifically involves diary-like entries, not physical classified documents. The alleged transmission of classified information to family members is not part of the charges to which he is expected to plead guilty.

The guilty plea would make Bolton thus far the only successful case in what critics describe as Trump’s campaign of retribution against those he perceives to be his political enemies. Bolton himself called the charges “not just about his focus on me or my diaries, but his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents.”

A plea hearing is scheduled June 26 before a federal judge in Maryland. — Rebecca Terrell

Target: Women — How Elitists Used Feminism to Undermine the Family

The conspiracy seeking global control was instrumental in promoting feminism and encouraging women to leave the home and find fulfillment in a career rather than family, explained The New American’s senior editor Rebecca Terrell on Behind the Deep State with Alex Newman.

Terrell, who wrote an article about this key issue for The New American’s June Special Report, encouraged women to reject the siren song of feminism and embrace femininity and family instead. Only then can civilization be saved from the evil agenda of those seeking to enslave humanity. — The Editors

Pentagon Elevates Israel to “Critical” Counterintelligence Threat Level

NBC News reports that the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is raising Israel’s counterintelligence threat level to “critical” (the highest designation) due to aggressive espionage activities targeting senior U.S. officials.

The DIA issued an internal assessment expressing concerns that Israel is intensifying efforts to surveil top American figures. The focus appears to be on gaining insight into the Trump administration’s internal deliberations and decision-making regarding Iran and Lebanon. This includes human espionage and technical collection capabilities rated at a “critical level.” U.S. personnel have reportedly adopted precautions such as using burner phones and avoiding sensitive discussions in Israeli hotel rooms. Meanwhile, the The New York Times reports that Israel’s Shin Bet domestic intelligence agency tried to plant a listening device in a U.S. Secret Service vehicle.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor, a combat veteran and frequent commentator on national security, noted the significance of the Pentagon elevating Israel’s risk rating to critical over espionage concerns. Other conservative media voices link it to Netanyahu’s alleged push for greater influence over U.S. military and intelligence systems, particularly through provisions in the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). A key point of contention is Section 224 of the House version of the Fiscal Year 2027 NDAA. This provision establishes a “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” It directs the secretary of defense to designate an executive agent to synchronize and accelerate bilateral efforts in research, development, testing, and integration of defense technologies. In other words, it amounts to a military merger.

Efforts by U.S. Representatives Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to remove or limit the section have faced opposition. The provision aims to move beyond traditional aid toward co-production and supply-chain integration, making ties harder to unwind.

Both Israel and the White House have denied the latest espionage allegations, though cases such as that of Jonathan Pollard illustrate the mutual awareness and reality of spying. — Rebecca Terrell