NYT: 10K ICE Arrests in 5 Days: ‘Quieter enforcement’ doesn’t mean fewer aliens arrested, deported

By Andrew R. Arthur

On July 1, the New York Times reported that ICE had detained 10,000 aliens in the prior five days, part of an administration push to boost immigration arrests that has “occurred without the fanfare of highly visible operations last year, in which officials announced their intentions ahead of time to target cities, including Chicago and Los Angeles, and send officers pouring into the streets”. As I told the Washington Post back in March: “Most Americans favor immigration enforcement. They just don’t want to see or hear much about it.” It sounds like somebody at DHS HQ was listening.

A Brief Recap of the Biden Years

When President Trump and his “Border Czar”, Tom Homan, returned in January 2025, they encountered a disaster: the unauthorized population had increased to 15.4 million in the prior four years, 1.44 million of whom were aliens who received their “due process” and were under final orders of removal.

That problem was exacerbated by four years of policies under President Biden and his DHS Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, that (1) opened the border to illegal immigration and (2) “de-prioritized” arrests and removals of aliens already unlawfully present in the United States, including criminals.

Specifically, under Biden and Mayorkas’s “catch and release” policies, an estimated six million illegal migrants encountered at the Southwest border were processed and released into the United States, burdening communities nationwide with massive fiscal costs (most keenly felt in big Northern cities) and imposing a crushing backlog on the immigration courts.

The number of alien “respondents” in immigration court proceedings skyrocketed in turn, rising from 1.55 million at the end of FY 2020 to 3.925 million in FY 2024 — a 153-percent increase in just four years, and one that occurred despite Biden administration efforts to quietly dispose (without disposition) of nearly one million other cases involving facially removable aliens.

Because DHS generally needs a final removal order from an immigration judge to remove most aliens from the United States, that mushrooming immigration court backlog became a chokepoint in the immigration enforcement system — but it was far from the only one.

That’s because, although few remember it, the Biden administration began with a 100-day moratorium on deportations, including removals of the most vicious and dangerous criminal aliens, fulfilling an equally little-noticed campaign promise then-candidate Joe Biden had made back in March 2024.

Though a federal district court judge quickly lifted that pause, neither the courts nor anyone else could require the Biden administration to enforce the immigration laws, regardless of the dangers aliens posed to the community or the impacts non-enforcement had on taxpayers, public safety, and national security.

Biden’s DHS followed up with more restrictions on immigration officers, culminating in September 2021, when Mayorkas imposed “guidelines” on ICE’s ability to investigate, arrest, detain, prosecute, and deport those here illegally, collectively known as “enforcement action”.

Those guidelines required ICE officers and attorneys to take utterly irrelevant “mitigating factors” (the alien’s age, mental condition, family ties, etc.) into consideration before, during, and after taking such enforcement action, which meant more criminal aliens on the streets — and a burgeoning population of illegal aliens.

The states of Texas and Louisiana pushed back, suing the administration over the social and fiscal costs Mayorkas’s non-enforcement regime was imposing on their citizens, an effort Biden’s DOJ fought all the way to the Supreme Court, where it ultimately prevailed in June 2023.

The justices concluded the states lacked judicial “standing” to sue to force immigration enforcement action, which ultimately sat poorly with voters and their representatives who saw the costs of Mayorkas’s policies all around them — leading directly to Trump’s return.

Congress responded in January 2025, passing the Laken Riley Act (LRA). That act legislatively overturned the Court and ensured states could seek legal recourse when and if DHS deliberately released illegal migrants and refused to take custody of criminal aliens again.

Reaction, Pushback, and Reaction

By then, however, a lot of damage had been done.

Trump II arrived with the immigration enforcement winds at its back, and Mayorkas’s successor Kristi Noem took voters’ displeasure over the Biden policies as a signal that she should embark on the high-profile and often confrontational enforcement operations the Times referred to on July 1.

As I noted in November, however, the department “risked losing the immigration-enforcement narrative” as high-level Democrats in many of the same states that had borne the brunt of Biden’s turbocharged border release policies flipped the script on Trump, alleging that DHS was the real danger in their communities, not the aliens the last administration had cosseted for so long.

The political fallout of two deaths of U.S. citizens during protests against DHS enforcement actions in Minnesota prompted the president to send Homan to smooth the waters in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, and by the time Noem was reassigned and replaced as DHS secretary by then-Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) in March, the border czar was by all accounts calling the immigration shots.

Many immigration hawks became concerned there had been a “Minneapolis effect”, with Trump, Mullin, and Homan reining in ICE officers’ arrest and deportation efforts in response to often-violent protestors’ demands.

By early April, a new “Mass Deportation Coalition” (MDC) had assembled, publishing a “playbook” of 21 actions the administration should take to reach a target goal of at least one million deportations per year.

Trump II has begun acting on many of those recommendations, proposing new rules to restrict illegal aliens’ access to the U.S. banking system, expanding criminal prosecutions and civil fines for immigration offenses, and placing a monetary target on the back of asylum fraudsters.

“Immigrant Arrests Surge to 10,000 in 5 Days as ICE Clamps Down”

What the MDC and other immigration-enforcement hawks have been most strongly demanding though was proof DHS was actively pursuing removable aliens in the community, which brings me to the Times’s July 1 article, headlined “Immigrant Arrests Surge to 10,000 in 5 Days as ICE Clamps Down”.

Citing government documents reviewed by the outlet and interviews with unnamed officials, it begins:

Federal immigration officials have detained more than 10,000 people in the last five days, a major surge that has stemmed from a push within Immigration and Customs Enforcement to increase arrest rates.

Agency leaders in recent days ordered top ICE officials to focus more of their officers’ efforts on picking up immigrants they want to deport. ... ICE officers have arrested people at check-ins with immigration authorities, during traffic stops and on the street. The push has apparently yielded results, with recent arrest numbers roughly doubling from the 1,000 picked up each day earlier this year.

While 2,000 arrests per day might not seem like much compared to an illegal population that numbers in the millions, it’s a historically blistering pace, and one official cited by the Times questioned how long the agency would be able to maintain it.

“Word of an Uptick in Arrests Has Started to Trickle Out”

Though the arrest figure is impressive, what’s more important is the message it sends to aliens living here unlawfully.

That message is apparently landing, because the Times reports that:

Word of an uptick in arrests has started to trickle out, sowing fear in immigrant communities and among advocates already on edge after the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Trump could end deportation protections for people from disaster- and war-torn countries under the Temporary Protected Status program.

Respectfully, the “fear” the Times contends is being sowed in those immigrant communities is little more than a realization that ICE is deporting those aliens Congress has said it must deport, and as an aside I’ll note that self-deportation is both much cheaper than physical deportation (which runs about $17,000 per alien) and more dignified for all involved.

Lincoln’s “Hen and Egg”

Perhaps some voters like seeing ICE officers and CBP agents running through streets and parking lots looking for deportable aliens and flashy videos comparing immigration arrests to Pokémon, but like Homan, I’ve been in this field for decades and understand that the best (and most popular) enforcement efforts are the ones reflected in the arrest and deportation stats — not on Tik Tok and X.

Or, as Lincoln famously quipped: “The hen is the wisest of all the animal creation, because she never cackles until the egg is laid.”

Mullin, too, wants less talk and more action on deportation, and the Times notes he’s “pledged to mount a quieter enforcement campaign” than his predecessor. But as the paper’s own reporting suggests, “quieter” doesn’t necessarily equate to fewer arrests and deportations — just less publicized ones. Now, let’s see the results.

https://cis.org/Arthur/NYT-10000-ICE-Arrests-Five-Days

Survey: Democrats Turning Heavily in Favor of Socialism

 For many of us who were raised in liberal, Democratic families, the infusion of socialist, anti-free-speech, and anti-Semitic elements into the party has been alarming. The party was always in favor of social welfare programs but remained ardently committed to free markets and free speech. Now, we have CNN anchors openly questioning whether candidates are too Jewish-looking for the Democratic base as socialists sweep away establishment candidates. A recent poll reaffirmed that trend with a vast majority of Democrats saying that they are prepared to support the socialists.

A recent Economist/YouGov survey asked respondents, “Would you ever vote for a candidate who identified as a “Democratic Socialist?”

While 85 percent of Republicans and 40 percent of independents said that they would not vote for socialists, 62 percent of Democrats said that they would.  Among self-described liberals, the percent of support for socialism soars to 73 percent.

For Kamala Harris supporters, 64 percent would support socialists.

Even more alarming is the preference of Democrats for socialism over capitalism. Some 34 percent choose socialism while only 22 percent choose capitalism. Overall, 58 percent of Democrats view socialism in general “favorably.”

It is not surprising that socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders went on YouTube this week to proclaim that “we are on the verge of the political revolution” that they have long sought to fundamentally change our system.

In Rage and the Republic, I discuss this shift toward socialism:

“Much of the anti-capitalist movement is composed of young people who have never lived under a socialist or communist government. Popular politicians like Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) have made socialism chic, alongside wealthy celebrity adherents such as Lawrence O’Donnell, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, and Sarah Silverman. There is a superficiality to many in this movement of wealthy celebrities wearing socialism on their designer sleeves. In one of the most glaring disconnects, Ocasio-Cortez attended the ritzy Met Gala (where tickets cost tens of thousands of dollars) wearing a designer dress with ‘Tax the Rich’ in large letters. It perfectly captured America’s armchair socialists, a commitment that often seems more performative than philosophical.”

Democratic establishment figures are maneuvering to stay ahead of the mob, many offering the far left the Supreme Court as bona fide. Others are staying silent as anti-Semitic figures fill their ranks.

Some politicians are struggling to curry support with the growing socialist movement. Rep. Dan Goldman, who inherited a massive fortune as a trust baby, unwisely promised to help subsidize his campaign from his family fortune. With the addition of three homes, Goldman looked like the Richie Rich of the Democratic Party and lost by over 30 points.

Others are trying to downplay their wealth, from Rep. Ro Khanna, who reportedly has half a billion dollars from his wife’s inheritance, to Gov. Jay Robert “J.B.” Pritzker, who also inherited his fortune. Pritzker assured the mob that he is a different kind of billionaire, pointing at Trump billionaires as the rightful targets (not him with $4.3 billion).

Notably, votes for socialists are not coming from blue-collar workers but from young, college-educated voters. These younger voters never experienced or watched the collapse of socialist systems in the last century. For them, the promise of the Mamdani’s “warmth of collectivism.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

https://jonathanturley.org/2026/07/03/survey-democrats-turning-heavily-in-favor-of-socialism/

Trump's 'hero' justice offers roadmap after Supreme Court rejects birthright order

 President Donald Trump lost his Supreme Court bid to restrict birthright citizenship through executive order, but one of his own appointees may have handed Republicans a blueprint for pursuing much of the same goal through Congress.

Voting with the 6-3 majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh agreed that Executive Order 14160, which restricts automatic citizenship to people born to U.S. citizens or permanent residents, couldn't take effect. But in a concurring opinion, he also pointed to a different path forward. Kavanaugh argued the court should have resolved the case under federal law rather than the Constitution, laying out a potential legislative path for Congress to pursue changes to birthright citizenship.

Congress first wrote the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship language into federal law in 1940, then carried it over into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.

Because Congress adopted that language after the Supreme Court's landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which established that most people born in the United States automatically become U.S. citizens, Kavanaugh said lawmakers effectively incorporated the court's interpretation into federal statute.

Kavanaugh said Trump couldn't use an executive order to change a law Congress had already passed, but instead suggested Congress could rewrite the law to limit birthright citizenship for children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily.

"Congress could — consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment—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 wrote.

Kavanaugh argued that large-scale illegal immigration and modern international travel have created circumstances the Reconstruction Congress never envisioned. In his view, that gives Congress room to establish new exceptions to birthright citizenship that are comparable to the historical exceptions recognized under the citizenship clause, including children born to foreign diplomats and enemy forces occupying U.S. territory.

"Those two categories of foreign citizens—namely, those unlawfully or temporarily in the country—are relevantly similar to the four categories of persons recognized as exceptions in Wong Kim Ark," Kavanaugh wrote.

While the majority rejected Kavanaugh's constitutional reasoning, Republicans quickly seized on the idea that any future effort to limit birthright citizenship would have to come through Congress rather than the White House.

Hours after the Supreme Court's ruling came out, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said birthright citizenship has "been abused" and suggested that Congress will have to amend the Constitution.

"It's one of those things that was intended to serve a noble and important purpose and has been thwarted and overused and abused," Johnson told reporters. "I'm sure that the conclusion from this decision is you have to amend the Constitution to fix that."

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., renewed his push for a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship, arguing that legislation alone would not be enough.

"I introduced a constitutional amendment months ago, actually, to fix birthright citizenship," Paul wrote on X. "After the Supreme Court decision, that amendment matters more than ever. I'm asking my colleagues to take it seriously and help me get this passed."

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, echoed Paul's calls to pass a constitutional amendment.

"The long fight for a constitutional amendment begins now," Lee wrote on X. "We must explicitly exclude foreign nationals who break our laws, violate our borders, or exploit loopholes to make their families American."

Trump argued that Congress could change birthright citizenship through legislation instead of a constitutional amendment.

"No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary!" Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support!"

Several Republicans quickly pointed to existing legislation, including Sen. Tom Cotton's, R-Ark., Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act, as well as proposals from Sens. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and Rick Scott, R-Fla., aimed at cracking down on birth tourism.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department indicated it would shift tactics, announcing a crackdown on birth tourism by targeting alleged visa fraud and related criminal conduct rather than attempting to enforce Executive Order 14160.

But, Kavanaugh's roadmap is far from a guarantee. On the constitutional question, a 5-4 majority concluded that the citizenship clause itself protects birthright citizenship, meaning any congressional effort to restrict it through ordinary legislation would likely face immediate constitutional challenges.

"Justice Thomas says in the final paragraph of his dissent that he's not confident that the decision is going to stand the test of time, so it could well be that the court would revisit it if Congress were to take the steps that Justice Kavanaugh describes," Notre Dame Law School professor Haley Proctor told Fox News Digital. "This is an important decision. I don't think the court's going to revisit it lightly, and the only sure way to get a new answer here would be to amend the Constitution."

Kavanaugh offered a similar roadmap in a recent Trump case over tariffs. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a federal emergency law known as IEEPA did not give Trump the authority to impose sweeping tariffs. But Kavanaugh argued the administration had simply relied on the wrong legal authority instead of rejecting the policy outright.

"The Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs," Kavanaugh wrote.

Instead, Kavanaugh said Trump could rely on several existing trade laws to impose many of the same tariffs, though those laws would require additional legal steps.

Trump later called Kavanaugh his "new hero" in a Truth Social post praising the justice's dissent in the February tariff decision.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-hero-justice-offers-roadmap-supreme-court-rejects-birthright-order

Why the Left Really Hates Trump’s America 250 Celebration

 Earlier this week, I walked around the Great American State Fair on the National Mall in Washington, DC. Despite the heavy negative press coverage, I thought it was impressive and inspiring.

The event boldly portrays American patriotism and exceptionalism across our great nation to celebrate our country’s 250th birthday. It runs from June 25 through July 10, featuring more than 150 exhibits from all 56 U.S. states and territories, along with businesses, innovators, and civic organizations. There is a towering Ferris wheel, a stage with live music and performances, family-friendly attractions, military ensembles, flyovers, and daily cultural programming. An innovation center showcases booths from SpaceX and NASA.

A notable contrast: while the people of France and several other European countries are suffering from the summer heat because of their leaders’ environmental extremism, which hates air conditioners, all 150 exhibits at the Great American State Fair are air-conditioned.

On July 4th, the celebration will culminate in an epic Independence Day event featuring the world’s largest fireworks show over the nation’s capital.

This is just one part of President Trump’s bold America 250 initiative. He also hosted the UFC Freedom 250 event on the White House South Lawn—a high-energy night of championship fights watched cage-side by the president himself alongside his family and UFC CEO Dana White. And in August, the Freedom 250 Grand Prix will bring IndyCar racing to the streets of Washington, near the National Mall—the first motor race of its kind in the nation’s capital, showcasing American speed, ingenuity, and the thrill of competition around our iconic monuments.

These large-scale, energetic spectacles are classic Trump. That is why his many unhinged critics have viciously attacked these patriotic events saluting our nation’s 250th birthday.

At its core, much of the backlash reflects a deeper disagreement. Trump’s events celebrate love of country, national pride, and American achievement—ideas that directly challenge the strain of anti-American sentiment common on the political left. Many critics view the United States not as history’s greatest force for peace, prosperity, and liberty, but as a flawed or villainous power. They tend to see patriotism itself as problematic.

This perspective was evident in prior administrations. Under President Biden, aggressive DEI initiatives reshaped military policies, contributing to a recruitment crisis. Trump reversed those policies and restored merit-based standards, and military enlistment has rebounded strongly. Similarly, President Obama’s “apology tour,” when he traveled the globe to apologize for America’s supposed history of arrogance and immoral policies, and Obama’s public skepticism toward American exceptionalism treated our nation’s founding principles and achievements as sources of shame rather than of pride.

In education, many parents grew concerned about curricula that emphasized America’s flaws while downplaying the nation’s founders, the sacrifices of its military, and the principles that have made the country exceptional. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is now advancing reforms aimed at closing the federal Department of Education, returning more authority to states and localities, and promoting curricula that focus on America’s heritage and accomplishments.

President Trump is restoring patriotism and traditional values. His America 250 celebration and the Great American State Fair are central parts of this ambitious effort to reconnect Americans with the story of our nation’s greatness. The fair does not lecture or divide—it invites families to celebrate the people, traditions, innovations, and spirit that make America the greatest nation on Earth.

Despite the left’s predictable whining and the media’s relentless negativity, the vast majority of the American people are with Trump. They want to see their country honored, not torn down. They want their children to grow up proud of the United States, not ashamed of it.

Take your family to the Great American State Fair in DC this week. Bring your children. Ride the Ferris wheel. Explore the pavilions. Watch the performances. On the Fourth of July, stand together and witness the historic fireworks that will light up the sky over the National Mall.

This is what a confident, unapologetic America looks like. This is Trump and America 250—and it is exactly what our country needs right now.

• * * *

Fred Fleitz previously served as Chief of Staff of the Trump National Security Council. He is vice chair of the America First Policy Institute. He is the author of North Korea, Nuclear Brinkmanship, and the Oval Office, which was just released by Texas A&M Press.

https://amgreatness.com/2026/07/03/why-the-left-really-hates-trumps-america-250-celebration/

Accountability for the Vaccine-Injured: A Senator Steps Up

 Five years is a significant milestone in any chronic illness. People can endure extraordinary physical pain, financial hardship, and emotional suffering if they that believe recovery is just around the corner. Hope often carries them through.

But after five years, hope itself begins to erode.

Savings have been exhausted. Careers have been interrupted or lost. Retirement plans have disappeared. Marriages have been strained by the relentless burden of chronic illness and caregiving. Medical appointments that once promised answers begin to feel repetitive and futile.

Gradually, the realization sets in that life may never return to what it once was. Temporary hardship becomes permanent reality. When physical suffering is compounded by financial ruin, social isolation, and the loss of future expectations, despair can become overwhelming.

For thousands of Americans permanently harmed during the Covid-19 vaccine rollout, that five-year milestone is arriving now.

Over the past several months, a disturbing number of Covid-19 vaccine-injured individuals have either taken their own lives or survived suicide attempts. As a board member of React19, a nonprofit dedicated to supporting those injured by the Covid-19 vaccines, I have come to know many of these stories personally. These are not statistics. They are husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters who believed that if they persevered long enough, help would eventually arrive.

For many, it never did.

What made their suffering especially devastating was not only the physical injury itself, but years spent feeling invisible. Many lost careers, homes, and financial security. Others depleted retirement savings or accumulated overwhelming medical debt. Almost all experienced some combination of disbelief, dismissal, and isolation. After years of being told their injuries were unlikely, unrelated, or simply impossible, many began to question whether anyone in authority would ever acknowledge what had happened.

Against that backdrop, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations’ recent interim report, Failure to Warn: How Federal Health Agencies Downplayed and Hid Myocarditis and Other Adverse Events Associated with the Covid-19 Vaccines, represents an important turning point.

Drawing on internal government records and documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the report concludes that federal health officials delayed acknowledging vaccine safety signals, withheld important information from the public, failed to respond fully to Congressional oversight, and repeatedly placed concerns about preserving public confidence above full transparency.

For the vaccine-injured community, that public acknowledgment matters. For the first time, many who were dismissed for years can point to official government findings confirming that safety concerns existed, were recognized internally, and were not fully communicated to the public.

Yet transparency alone is not enough.

A report that documents misconduct but produces no consequences may satisfy historians, but it offers little comfort to those whose lives were permanently altered by the conduct it describes. Facts matter. Investigations matter. But they matter most when they lead to accountability.

Fortunately, Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI), the chairman of the Subcommittee, has made clear that this report is not the end of his work—it is the beginning.

Throughout the pandemic and the years that followed, Senator Johnson has courageously pressed federal agencies for answers, demanded documents, convened hearings, and, perhaps most importantly, gave Covid-19 vaccine-injured Americans an opportunity to tell their stories publicly. His message has remained remarkably consistent: transparency is essential, but transparency must ultimately be followed by accountability.

That accountability cannot stop with institutions.

Too often, government failures are blamed on agencies, departments, or bureaucratic systems, as though decisions simply emerged from the machinery of government. Institutions become shields behind which individuals disappear.

But institutions do not make decisions. People do. Government agencies did not conceal information. Individuals did. Government agencies did not ignore safety signals. Individuals did. Government agencies did not delay informing the public. Individuals did.

Every significant decision described in Senator Johnson’s report was made by identifiable people exercising authority and judgment. Accountability therefore requires more than institutional reform. It requires determining whether those entrusted with protecting the public fulfilled their responsibilities and, if they did not, whether they should face professional, civil, or criminal consequences.

For the vaccine-injured community, accountability is not about revenge. It is about affirming a principle fundamental to every constitutional republic: no public official is above responsibility, and every citizen deserves honesty from those entrusted with protecting public health. Simply put, it is about justice.

Certainly, justice cannot restore damaged nerves. It cannot erase years of pain, financial ruin, or shattered careers. It cannot bring back those who lost their battle with despair before recognition finally arrived.

However, the pursuit of justice can restore something that has been steadily disappearing over the past five years.

Faith. Faith that truth still matters. Faith that public service still carries responsibility. Faith that those who suffered were not forgotten.

That may ultimately become Senator Johnson’s greatest contribution, not simply exposing what happened, but demonstrating that the search for truth does not end when the headlines fade. For thousands of Americans who have waited five long years to be seen, heard, and believed, that renewed faith may prove to be the best medicine of all.  

Christopher Dreisbach

Prior to his own life altering vaccine injury, Chris primarily practiced criminal defense throughout central Pennsylvania. His client base ranged from individuals facing minor offenses such as driving under the influence to those charged with serious offenses including homicide. In addition to his private clients, Chris served as court-appointed counsel representing incarcerated individuals under Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act. 

https://brownstone.org/articles/accountability-for-the-vaccine-injured-a-senator-steps-up/

Michael Burry makes a bearish bet against hot memory stock Micron: reports

 'Big Short' investor has been wagering against AI trades for months

Michael Burry has reportedly taken out a short position on Micron Technology.

Michael Burry has intensified his bearish stance against the AI trade with a reported bet against Micron Technology, one of the most important plays in the memory space.

The investor portrayed in the "The Big Short" making bets against the housing market during the subprime-mortgage crisis, revealed that move in a Thursday Substack post, widely reported on X accounts and financial publications such as Seeking Alpha.

On July 1, he took out a short position on Micron (MU) at $1,051.87 per share, the Substack reportedly said. Such a trade involves an investor borrowing shares they don't own and selling them, in the hopes of buying those back cheaper later and making a profit.

"Yesterday I shorted one stock even though it was down a good amount because I think I have a pretty good idea how this resolves. I also added to five positions. This time may be different, but not nearly different enough," Burry wrote in a Thursday post.

He reportedly blamed "fear of missing out, greater fool theory, [and] public commitment bias," on Micron's explosive gains - 697% in a year and 241% in 2026 so far. The stock soared to $1,213 per share following blowout earnings on June 25, but closed at $975 on Thursday.

Burry said he added to positions PayPal (PYPL), Sprouts Farmers Market (SFM), Zoetis (ZTS), Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC), those reports said. He alluded to a couple of those in a post on X:

Earlier this week, Burry made bearish bets against Tesla (TSLA), Caterpillar (CAT), Applied Materials (AMAT) and the iShares Semiconductor ETF SOXX. AI data centers have put Caterpillar's power-generation products in demand, with those shares up 68% this year.

In a Substack post on Tuesday, he expressed alarm over Samsung (KR:005930) and SK Hynix's (KR:000660) plans to invest more than $500 billion into a chip hub, The Wall Street Journal reported. "The proximate cause of today's rally is big spending announced out of Korea," he wrote. "Well, I see that as the beginning of the end."

Burry's first doubts over the AI trade were revealed in November, via a quarterly 13-F report for his now-closed hedge funds that showed Palantir Technologies (PLTR) and Nvidia shorts.

Micron shares slid nearly 11% on Wednesday, alongside sharp losses for Sandisk, with some blaming the drop on it and other chip stocks on a report that Meta (META) is considering selling its excess cloud capacity. Also surfacing this week was a report that Apple wants to tap China for its memory shortage.

"China makes up around 15% of Apple's sales and other companies could follow these steps as they also see their profits being squeezed by an unreasonable jump in memory chip prices," said Ipek Ozkardeskaya, senior analyst at Swissquote, in a note on Thursday.

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20260703110/michael-burry-makes-a-bearish-bet-against-hot-memory-stock-micron-reports

SpaceX Analyst Debut Set to Test $2.2 Trillion Valuation

Investors in SpaceX have been largely flying blind since the company's record-breaking IPO last month, with few financial projections to help determine what the stock is actually worth.


That changes next week, when the quiet period ends for analysts at banks that underwrote the $86 billion initial public offering, which was led by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Morgan Stanley, Bank of America Corp., Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co., with 18 other banks participating. Starting Tuesday, investors should expect a pile of new research, price targets and growth estimates, all of which should help shed light on where the shares are likely headed in the near term and over the next few years.

"Everyone's talking about what this company could be in 2030 and not what they can be for the next 12 months," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at B. Riley Wealth. "It's an investment where you're looking out to a brighter future, but you're still looking out four years."

The problem with figuring out what SpaceX is worth lies in the difference between its current numbers and what's expected in the not-too-distant future. The company, which is officially called Space Exploration Technologies Corp., is expected to report about $36 billion in revenue in 2026, based on a small number of early estimates from analysts at firms that did not participate in the IPO. And it isn't profitable.


SpaceX's price-to-sales ratio is 41 times revenue projected over the next 12 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. To get a sense of how extreme this is, the most expensive stock in the S&P 500 Index based on this metric is Palantir Technologies Inc., which trades at 32 times. Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp. are both priced below nine times estimated sales.

"There's so much future value of the company tied up in revenue streams that are still to some extent distant," said Robert Gruendyke, senior portfolio manager for the growth equity team at Allspring Global Investments. "It's going to lead to much more volatility in the stock than most more established, mature businesses."

'May Not Be Alive'

To square SpaceX's current value Wall Street has been talking up its aggressive growth path. The research team at Goldman sees the company's total revenue hitting $474 billion in 2030. Evercore ISI analysts expect sales to top $1 trillion by 2031. Morgan Stanley analysts said revenue could reach $3.4 trillion in 2040, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.


"I may not be alive to see that," said Vikram Rai, a portfolio manager and macro trader at First New York. "When you throw projections so far out in the future, there's no way to check it."

This is why the research initiations will be important, because they should include more concrete near-term projections and figures for investors to compare as they assess what's quickly become one of the hottest stocks in the market.

The shares went public at $135 on June 11, opened for trading at $150 a day later, and immediately took off. On June 16, SpaceX closed at $201.80 with a market capitalization of $2.6 trillion, making it the sixth-largest company in the world. Then, the momentum shifted. On Wednesday, the stock closed at $157.54 with a market capitalization of less than $2.1 trillion, down 22% from its high and not far from where it started trading after the IPO.

So far, Wall Street is mostly bullish on the stock. Eight of the 12 analysts tracked by Bloomberg rate it a buy. Individual targets for the share price over the next 12 months range from $165 to $401, and the average of $223 is 41% above where they closed Wednesday.


Published estimates have SpaceX turning a slight profit in 2028, with revenue quadrupling to $160 billion. The company could see an 800% jump in sales by 2030, but its stock will still be more expensive than its megacap peers that generate many times more in revenue, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analysts led by George Ferguson.

"SpaceX's valuation is stretched despite revenue and profit seen rising sharply in the next five years, based on our model," they wrote in a research note on June 30. "Even as sales rise almost 9x and Ebitda 17x to 2030, our model shows valuation exceeding 2026 metrics for moneymakers like Microsoft, Meta, Google and Amazon."

Beyond Perfection

That helps explain why some analysts are skeptical about SpaceX. Morningstar's Nicolas Owens has a sell rating on the stock. Argus initiated coverage at hold, saying it will likely be years before SpaceX's multiple lands at a more normal level. And CFRA analyst Keith Snyder initiated coverage at sell with a $115 12-month target, below the IPO price, citing the company's elevated market valuation and significant capital intensity.


"The current investment case requires investors to underwrite several difficult outcomes at the same time," Snyder wrote in a note on June 12. SpaceX is challenging to value because it isn't easily comparable to traditional aerospace companies, satellite operators, telecommunications providers, cloud infrastructure manufacturers or AI model businesses.

"SpaceX is an exceptional company, but exceptional companies can still make unattractive investments if the valuation assumes too much future success," he wrote.

To make matters even more interesting, the analysts' quiet period ends on the same day that SpaceX is being added to the Nasdaq 100 Index, which will lend considerable support to the stock considering the number of funds that track the tech-heavy benchmark. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates that it will drive $4.9 billion in share purchases.

The timing is ideal to minimize volatility in the stock, according to David Trainer, chief executive officer of technology research firm New Constructs. However, he warns investors to be cautious because the company's market valuation is so detached from its fundamentals.


"It's priced to perfection beyond out of this world," he said.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/spacex-analyst-debut-set-test-084117535.html