Impact of the loss of premium tax credits for the enhanced Affordable Care Act

The enhanced subsidies, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic and extended via the Inflation Reduction Act, ended on December 25, 2025. This negatively impacted the entire American healthcare system.

Total marketplace enrollment declined by 2.6 million people (12%) between February 2025 and February 2026, the steepest decline since the exchanges opened in 2014.

The average out-of-pocket premium for a subsidized household more than doubled, from $888 in 2025 to $1,904 in 2026.

Middle-income earners making just over 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (~$63,000 for a single individual) saw their financial assistance vanish entirely overnight. For example, a 60-year-old earning $65,000 can face annual premiums as high as $26,000.

Older adults in their 50s and 60s face the steepest premium hikes due to age-rating rules built into standard insurance pricing.

Healthier and younger individuals are the first to drop coverage when prices spike. This leaves a sicker, older pool of enrollees.

To cover the added risk of a sicker pool, insurers are projected to lift baseline unsubsidized premium rates by up to 26%.

Fearing financial losses from poor risk pools, some insurers are expected to exit state marketplaces altogether, leaving consumers with fewer plan options.

Hospitals, clinics, and safety-net providers are facing an estimated $7.7 billion surge in uncompensated care in 2026 alone. Individuals who dropped insurance still seek emergency care but cannot pay their bills.

Medical groups, hospitals, and pharmacies are dealing with a projected $32.1 billion drop in revenue as individuals cut back on elective procedures, doctor visits, and filled prescriptions.

On the conservative ledger, letting the subsidies expire saves the federal government roughly $30 billion to $35 billion per year in tax credit payouts.

Conversely, economic models show that the loss of healthcare consumerism is shrinking overall state GDPs by $34.1 billion and threatening over 286,000 jobs nationwide.

Some states like Mississippi and Texas face the worst uninsured spikes; a few others have attempted to launch temporary, state-funded stopgap subsidies to blunt the impact.

In the United States, virtually no segment of the population is completely, 100% insulated from the out-of-pocket costs of healthcare. Even among those with comprehensive health insurance, premiums, deductibles, copays, and coverage denials leave the vast majority exposed to financial risk.

Insulation by Insurance Type

True insulation from costs—having medical expenses fully paid for when someone gets sick—depends heavily on the type of insurance coverage.

Public Insurance Only (Medicaid): This group is the most insulated. Approximately 47.8% of people under age 65 covered solely by public insurance have $0 in annual out-of-pocket expenses.

Private / Employer Insurance: This group has very little insulation. Only 9.1% of privately insured individuals manage to navigate the year with zero out-of-pocket medical expenses.

The “Cost Secure” Population
Instead of being entirely insulated, a better metric is whether people feel financially safe from healthcare costs. According to the West Health-Gallup Healthcare Affordability Index only 49% of U.S. adults are classified as “Cost Secure”—meaning they can reliably afford the medical care and prescriptions they need.

The remaining 51% of the population is considered under financial stress regarding medical care. This lack of security impacts even affluent households; roughly 20% of households making over $180,000 a year report that they are not cost-secure.

Why is healthcare in America so expensive?

Healthcare in America is expensive primarily because providers, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies charge significantly higher prices for services, drugs, and medical devices than anywhere else in the world.

According to analyses by organizations like the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, the crisis is driven by several major structural factors:

High Prices, Not More Care

Americans do not necessarily consume more healthcare than people in other wealthy nations; they simply pay much higher prices for the exact same doctor visits, hospital stays, and procedures.

The U.S. lacks broad government price controls on pharmaceuticals, allowing drug manufacturers to charge the highest prices globally.

Lack of Competition and Market Consolidation

Hospital Monopolies: Large hospital systems routinely buy up smaller local clinics and independent practices, creating local monopolies or “take-it-or-leave-it” markets where they can dictate high prices.

Strict licensing requirements, medical school limits, and barriers for international doctors restrict the overall supply of medical professionals, driving up labor costs.

Administrative Waste and Complexity

The U.S. system relies on a fragmented network of hundreds of private and public insurance plans, each with unique billing codes, rules, and portals.

Overhead

Hospitals, doctors, and insurers must employ massive administrative staffs just to handle complex billing and paperwork, which adds billions in waste that does not improve patient care.

Misaligned Incentives

Reactive Care: The American system rewards reactive treatment and specialized procedures rather than long-term primary care, wellness, and disease prevention.

A vast majority of healthcare spending goes toward treating severe, advanced-stage chronic conditions (like heart disease and diabetes) that could have been managed or prevented much more cheaply through early primary care.

Impact of the Cost of Education

The average total sticker price for education from a bachelor’s degree through a Ph.D. ranges from $130,000 to over $300,000 in tuition and fees, though out-of-pocket costs for a Ph.D. are often heavily discounted or free.

Breakdown by Degree Level

Bachelor’s Degree (Undergraduate)
• Average Cost: $40,000 to $120,000+ total (for 4 years).
• Details: In-state public universities average around $10,000–$11,000 per year in tuition ($40,000–$44,000 total). Private nonprofit universities often average $40,000+ per year ($160,000+ total) before financial aid.
Master’s Degree (Optional/Interim)
• Average Total Cost: Around $62,000 to $73,000 (for a 2-year program).
• Details: Costs vary by field (e.g., arts vs. education) and whether the school is public or private. Many students go straight from a bachelor’s to a Ph.D. and skip a standalone master’s program.
Ph.D. / Doctoral Degree
• Sticker Price Cost: $48,000 to $145,000+ total (for 4 to 6 years).
• Actual Cost: Often $0 in tuition. Most research Ph.D. programs in the U.S. provide tuition waivers and pay students a modest living stipend ($20,000 to $36,000 per year) in exchange for teaching or research assistantships.

Important Financial Factors

• The biggest expense of a Ph.D. is not tuition, but the salary you give up while spending 5 to 6 years in school instead of working full-time.
• Professional doctorates (like an Ed.D. or DBA) rarely offer full funding, whereas traditional research Ph.D.s frequently do.

Earning a Full Professional Salary (Ages 28–35+)

The median age for completing a PhD in the U.S. is about 31.5 years old, varying by field (STEM fields often finish around 29–32; humanities often finish around 36).

Impact of Malpractice Insurance Premiums

Malpractice insurance premiums increase the cost of healthcare by raising the operating expenses for doctors and hospitals, which leads to higher prices for medical services.

Direct Costs for Providers
• Higher Overhead: Doctors and clinics pay thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for malpractice coverage.
• Specialty Differences: High-risk specialties like neurosurgery or obstetrics face massive premiums, forcing providers to charge more to stay in business.

Indirect Costs and Defensive Medicine
• Defensive Medicine: Doctors order extra tests and procedures just to protect themselves from lawsuits.
• Wasted Spending: This extra care adds billions of dollars to the healthcare system every year without improving patient health.
• Access Issues: High costs drive doctors away from certain high-risk areas or cause them to retire early, which reduces the supply of care and raises prices.

Impact of High Healthcare Costs on Labor Competitiveness

Higher Business Costs
• Employers pay a large share of health insurance for their workers.
• This high overhead leaves companies with less money to hire new staff.
• Businesses have less cash to invest in new equipment or training.

Slower Wage Growth
• Money spent on health insurance cannot go into paychecks.
• Workers see flat or very slow wage increases.
• Rising insurance premiums swallow up gains in worker productivity.

Lower Job Mobility (“Job Lock”)
• Workers fear losing their health insurance if they change jobs.
• People stay in jobs that do not match their true skill level.
• This dynamic stops workers from moving to more productive roles.
• It also discourages people from starting new businesses.

Impact of Healthcare Lobbying
Healthcare lobbying shapes federal legislation by driving up medical costs, blocking reforms like single-payer or surprise billing protections, and protecting industry revenues. Healthcare lobbying is governed generally by the Lobbying Disclosure Act and monitored via public disclosures.

Key Impacts of Healthcare Lobbying

Higher Costs: The pharmaceutical, insurance, and hospital sectors spend billions to influence Congress, which helps maintain complex administrative systems that drive up prices for patients.

Blocked Reforms: Well-funded industry groups frequently stall or weaken cost-containment measures, prevent public option plans, and fight against price caps on prescription drugs.

Unequal Representation: Because healthcare policy is highly complex, lawmakers often rely on industry lobbyists for information, giving heavily resourced corporate groups far more influence than patient advocates.

Concentrated Power: A small number of large, for-profit health systems and corporate associations account for the vast majority of lobbying expenditures, skewing federal policy in their favor.

Impact of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

In 2010 the Supreme Court lifted restrictions on independent political spending by corporations, labor unions, and wealthy donors, declaring that limiting this independent spending violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. The primary impacts of this landmark decision on modern election cycles include:

The Rise of Super PACs
While direct contributions from corporations and unions to a candidate’s official campaign remain illegal, the ruling paved the way for a subsequent lower court case (SpeechNow.org v. FEC) that established Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs). These entities can accept completely unlimited financial contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions to openly advocate for or against candidates.

Proliferation of “Dark Money”
The decision greatly expanded the use of dark money. This occurs when political spending flows through politically active 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and non-profits. Because these groups are not legally required to disclose their donor lists, hundreds of millions of dollars pour into elections annually from completely untraceable sources.

Escalation in Election Spending
Total federal election spending has reached unprecedented heights. Ultra-wealthy mega-donors exert a highly concentrated influence. For example, the Brennan Center for Justice found that during the 2024 presidential race, donors giving $5 million or more to Super PACs spent more than double what they had in the 2020 election. Ultra-wealthy donors contributed over $2.6 billion during that single federal election cycle.

Partisan and State-Level Shifts
Research indicates the lifting of spending limits has influenced political map outcomes unevenly. A multi-year study comparing state legislative patterns published by Columbia University found that in the 23 states that previously maintained strict corporate and union spending bans, the Republican Party captured a 3-to-4 percent greater share of the vote and an average 5 percent increase in legislative seats after the 2010 ruling.

Campaign Finance System Comparison Post-Citizens United

Ineffective Government
The Federal Government as a whole is heavily influenced -some say fully controlled- by big money in terms of the legislation it enacts. This has created entrenched conditions that saddle ordinary Americans with much higher education, healthcare and insurance costs, among many others, that heavily reduce the nation’s competitiveness in the global market. While not the only cause, it is directly related to the chronic trade deficit.

Tariffs
The ramifications are so deep and widespread that it is futile to attempt to redress them with tariffs. This approach has been tried before, specifically the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that raised import duties on over 20,000 goods and deepened the global economic downturn of the Great Depression.

Retaliation and Wars
• Foreign retaliation: Overseas nations like Canada, France, and Britain quickly imposed their own punitive tariffs against American-made goods.
• Collapsing commerce: Global trade plummeted sharply, with international trade values dropping by roughly 65% between 1929 and 1934.
• Shrinking exports: U.S. exports fell drastically as foreign markets became closed or too expensive to access.
• Served as a catalyst to the rise of Adolf Hitler

Economic Strain at Home
• Higher consumer prices: Tariffs forced everyday items like food and clothing to become more expensive for struggling American families.
• Worsened depression: While the 1929 stock market crash started the downturn, the tariff walls choked off recovery channels and worsened unemployment.
• Agricultural distress: Farmers who originally pushed for protection found themselves hurt worse by lost export markets and retaliatory measures.

The subsequent Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 reversed these policies.

Conclusion
The painful trail of calamities that befell humanity beginning with the Great Depression are but a dress rehearsal of what might follow should we fail to address them. Not only are today’s weapons orders of magnitude more powerful than ever, for the first time the United States is attempting to dominate a far more populous country (China) and a much larger industrial capacity, all in the context of incipient technologies (AI and robotics) the likes of which we’ve never seen. This begs the question, is it still easier, less costly and deadly, to attempt to force others to do our bidding, or is the time ripe to enact peaceful, lifesaving, imperceptible internal changes for the benefit of all? If the latter is in the running, the book above may have the answer.

Hitler and the Great Depression

The Great Depression devastated Germany’s economy, creating widespread desperation and political chaos that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party exploited to seize power.

Economic Collapse in Germany
• Loss of American Loans: Germany’s post-World War I economy relied heavily on U.S. loans. When the 1929 stock market crash happened, American banks demanded their money back immediately.
• Mass Unemployment: German unemployment soared from about 1.5 million people in 1929 to roughly 6 million by 1932, leaving one in three German workers without a job.
• Poverty and Hunger: Industrial production plummeted, banks collapsed, and millions of families faced severe poverty, homelessness, and starvation.

Weakness of the Democratic Government
• Failure of the Weimar Republic: The democratic government in Germany—known as the Weimar Republic—failed to fix the crisis. Chancellor Heinrich Brüning responded with strict spending cuts and austerity, which only made the economic pain worse.
• Political Gridlock: The government was deeply divided into many small political parties that could not agree on solutions or maintain a stable majority.
• Loss of Faith: As democratic leaders argued and failed to help, ordinary citizens lost confidence in democracy itself.

Nazi Exploitation and Promises
• Appealing Pledges: The Nazi Party promised jobs, food, economic recovery, and a restoration of national pride.
• Hitler blamed the country’s troubles on the democratic leaders, the Treaty of Versailles, and Jewish people.
• Amid rising social unrest, the Nazis presented themselves as the only strong force capable of stopping a communist revolution, which won them the backing of wealthy business owners and conservative elites.
• Electoral Surge: As misery deepened, desperate voters turned to the extremes, boosting Nazi seats in parliament and paving the way for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor in January 1933.

Lavrov & Rubio

OPINION

On July 23, 2026, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met in Manila to discuss the Russia-Ukraine war. It was later disclosed that the meeting lasted a scant 35 minutes and that it produced no visible breakthrough. In Russia’s readout, Lavrov again stated that continued Western arms supplies to Ukraine is unacceptable.

At the same time, the on-and-off U.S. – Iran war is steadily escalating. Of particular interest is Iran’s ability to accurately target and hit valuable U.S. assets throughout the region, and more importantly, to kill U.S. personnel. There is no reason to doubt that Iran, a nation where the majority of college graduates are women, has indigenously acquired the technology to manufacture maneuverable high-speed missiles capable of penetrating U.S. defenses. However, it is not known to possess high-resolution satellites capable of dynamically pinpointing specific high-value targets such as radars, hangars with expensive planes and drones, and more importantly, barracks. That is not to say it does not have such technology, only that it is not publicly known to have it. On the other hand, Russia and China, who do have it, could be forwarding such intelligence to Iran. If so, that would make either, or both, active participants in the conflict on par with the U.S. and Europe in the Ukrainian war. The difference is that both Russia and China deny any such involvement whereas the U.S. and Europe publicly acknowledge it.

The potential for these seemingly unrelated conflicts to merge into an uncontrollable cauldron is much higher than one might assume. The fact is, the interests of Russia and China on the one hand, and the U.S. and Europe on the other, are on opposite sides of the fence. As it pertains to Ukraine, it is intolerable and unacceptable for Russia not to enforce its stated terms; that would be, from their point of view, tantamount to a strategic defeat that might precipitate the demise of the Russian State. Unfortunately, this could well be considered the very set of conditions that might trigger the use of nuclear weapons as defined by President Putin when he lowered the threshold for their use in 2024.

Similarly, in terms of size, Iran is a large mountainous country, larger than France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom combined, with many places where to hide things. Should Iran eventually conclude that the only true deterrent to U.S. – Israeli attacks is to acquire nuclear weapons, it might in short order find a way to do so and present the world with a fait accompli. What would follow is anyone’s guess.

The only way to ensure a peaceful outcome is to meet the legitimate concerns and rights of the belligerents and their protégés. Given the religious and ethnic strife in the region, that, of course, is the ultimate test of tolerance.

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

Click image to enlarge

On August 18, 2026, President Trump asserted on his Truth Social site that the Strait of Hormuz is now a “new US territory.” This needs to be carefully unpacked.

Contrary to the opinion of some of his -to put it mildly- detractors everywhere, this is not concocted by someone who is ignorant or whose intellect is immeasurably low. Quite the opposite; considering Mr. Trump’s prime directive to defend and perpetuate the dollar’s privileged role as reserve currency of the world, which is the critical pillar supporting the American economy, it is at once an ominous and masterful stroke.

Ominous because it signals that the U.S. will “defend” its rightful property, presumably with all the means at its disposal. Unfortunately, China could simultaneously mirror the act with respect to Taiwan based on its oft-stated principles of reciprocity and equality. No need to expand on that possibility. As for Iran, it would ostensibly not be able to fire back in kind; namely, that it would not, or could not, swallow the poison pill as it sinks into oblivion and cause unimaginable damage to the life-sustaining desalination plants and oil infrastructure in the entire Middle East. Hopefully that would be the case, for any other result could hardly be called a victory.

It is also masterful in the context of American politics given the uncertain fate of the Republicans’ current majority in Congress come November. In a word, should all-out war with Iran resume in earnest, which may include the nuclear option, it would all but bind the Democrats, should they win, to continue the war until victory is achieved. However, the definition of victory would no longer be based on Mr. Trump’s current terms; it would presumably be the result of the annihilation of the Islamic regime. Thus, should these events come to pass, Mr. Trump’s decision would forestall the possibility that a resurgent Democratic party might curb his will and revoke or limit his warmaking powers for the remainder of his term.

The United States currently exercises sovereignty over 14 distinct territories (often cited as up to 16 including disputed banks), which are classified as sub-national administrative divisions. Of these, five are permanently inhabited and self-governing, while the remaining nine are minor, unpopulated islands primarily used for wildlife preservation and military strategic positioning. The inhabited territories are Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The Strait of Hormuz is different. If the claim is limited to its waters, which include territorial waters of Iran and other countries, it would be the first of its kind, entirely aquatic. On the other hand, if the circle on Mr. Trump’s post is to be taken literally, the land within it would also include sovereign portions of those countries. In other words, it would require their invasion and permanent occupation. It is at the very least doubtful that Iran would agree to that.

To make matters worse, all this is happening in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war. Indeed, Foreign Minister Lavrov declared that Russia will view British involvement in long-range strikes as participation in the war, and that it will face consequences if it continues to supply drones used by Ukraine for strikes deep inside Russia. Although Lavrov did not define said consequences, Prime Minister Andy Burham responded by saying that the UK will continue to support Ukraine “100%.”

So, depending on Moscow’s response, the distinct possibility of a merger of the two wars exists. That would mean a direct confrontation between nuclear-armed powers, namely NATO/Ukraine & Israel vs. Russia and Iran. To be blunt, no one would win a war of that magnitude.

Mr. Putin is correct to the extent that the root causes of the Russia-Ukraine conflict must be addressed, particularly since he considers his grievances a direct threat to the Russian State. But his perception is one of several that also need to be settled. These include the genuinely reasonable fear of eastern Europeans, which include Poland, Finland, Romania, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Ukraine but not Britain, France and Germany, that Russia wants to reduce them to vassal states to restore the Russian Empire; and American concern that the formerly haphazard de-dollarization in oil transactions is morphing into a structural trend explicitly designed and supported by BRICS, particularly China, which constitutes a clear and present threat to the viability of the American State.

Nuclear war will not and cannot solve any of these grievances and fears because it would destroy everyone. What’s needed is a completely impartial, feasible alternative to fully address them all, gradually and imperceptibly. The content of the book shown above is one such suggestion.

Aspects of the U.S. – Iran War

July 24, 2026

There are numerous aspects and ramifications of the conflict between Iran on the one hand, and the U.S. and Israel on the other. One such aspect is that the interests of the U.S. and Israel, which in the past have aligned seamlessly, are not necessarily congruent within the context of the growing competition between the U.S and China.

As of this writing, the ability of the U.S. to service its massive (and growing) debt and to spend beyond its means depends on the dollar’s role as reserve currency of the world (RCW). In recent years that privilege -not a perpetual right or entitlement- was imperiled when a growing number of central banks began to reduce their dollar reserves, a process known as de-dollarization. At the end of 2025 Iran and Venezuela, heavily sanctioned by the U.S., were selling oil to China in yuan. That reduced the global demand for dollars and, by extension, threatened the liquidity flowing into Wall Street. As of the latter part of June 2026, the situation has been fundamentally redressed. Now Venezuela and (on and off) Iran are allowed to sell their oil in U.S. petrodollars. This strengthens the dollar as RCW and recycles dollars to the U.S. to help pay over $1.2 trillion annually (about $3.3 billion per day) gross interest expense on its growing national debt. So, irrespective of any obvious aversion to the war’s tragic consequences, it’s only fair to give credit where credit is due. For the foreseeable future Mr. Trump’s actions have indeed succeeded in parrying a lethal threat to the U.S. economy, and by extension, to its continued existence as a functional state.

There are of course other aspects to consider. One is that the role of oil is bound to decline irreversibly as China and the rest of the world embrace, over time, other forms of energy. Paradoxically, this trend makes all oil-producing countries, including Russia, the U.S. and Iran, ironic bedfellows as they face this unavoidable reality. What’s worse, so far, no alternate plan to deal with it has been made available to the public for comprehensive scrutiny. As a result, chaos is on the horizon.

China’s efforts to expand solar/battery and nuclear energy alternatives to wean itself from oil, while commendable, does not alter the fact that with nearly 20% of the global population, it only has about 6% of the world’s freshwater resources. India, even more populous than China, has access to only about 4% of the world’s freshwater resources. In addition, the great aquifers of the world are quickly being depleted, which is sure to eventually impact food production; and desalination, a necessity in areas such as the Middle East and Southern California, has serious disadvantages.

The Israel/Iran conflict has a unique dynamic. Israel’s policy to not allow an independent Palestinian state and to gradually absorb the West Bank (called Judea and Samaria in Israel) rests on its ability to assert and enforce it. To do so, it must perpetually maintain its qualitative superiority in terms of military power over any combination of Middle Eastern states, including Iran; that requires unwavering and perpetual U.S. financial and military support. In other words, Israel appears to aim to live in a permanent state of war and to win all its battles. At best, that seems imprudent and unrealistic. Alliances, like sands in the desert, can shift without warning, and no country or empire, including Rome, ever won all its battles.

One reason the Palestinians have not mustered the power and clout to create a fully independent and sovereign state is that they’ve never had a patron supporter to counter the U.S.-Israel alliance. For example, in its heyday the Soviet Union stopped short of providing Egypt and Syria the necessary air or nuclear power to defeat Israel. Iran is the exception; and given the world’s track record on proliferation of weapons, there’s no telling just how powerful they’ll eventually become and how they’ll use that power. On that note, it might be prudent for Israel to fine tune its policy so that mutual respect and survival, not dominance, becomes its prime directive.

Lastly, it’s worth asking if the horror of the Strait of Hormuz would have impacted the world to the degree it has, had the world replaced oil with green hydrogen from electrolysis of seawater. This is even more self-evident given that hydrogen can be used to create the water that will soon be needed worldwide as, exacerbated by climate change, the great aquifers dwindle and our food supply declines. The book Oil, Not Hydrogen! describes how and why this could be done, gradually and imperceptibly.

U.S. – Iran MOU 06-17-2026

Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran has jointly agreed in good faith on the following:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran undertake to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days extendable with mutual consent.
Immediately upon the signing of this MOU, the United States of America will begin the removal of its naval blockade and any disturbances or impediments against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will fully end the naval blockade within 30 days. During this period, the traffic of vessels will be in proportion to the numbers of pre-war traffic being restored by the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America further undertakes to remove its forces from the proximity of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final deal,
Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the technical and military obstacles and demining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz in discussion with other Persian Gulf with Oil states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz
The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least USD $300 billion for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mechanism for the implementation of this plan will be finalized as part of a final deal within 60 days. All required licenses, waivers, and permissions needed for the relevant financial transactions will be granted by the United States of America.
The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, i.e.
IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it shall not procure or develop nuclear weapons. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran have agreed to resolve the disposition of stockpile enriched material pursuant to a mechanism that will be mutually agreed upon in accordance with the schedule mentioned in paragraph seven with the minimum methodology to be down blending on site under the supervision of the IAEA. The two parties also agreed to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed matters related to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear needs, based on a satisfactory framework being agreed upon in the final deal. The final deal will confirm the provisions of this paragraph. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran acknowledge the critical importance of the nuclear issues above mentioned, and express their intention to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
Pending the final deal, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree to maintain the status quo. The Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the current status quo of its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions, and will not deploy additional forces in the region.
The United States of America undertakes that immediately upon the signing of this MOU, and until the termination of sanctions, the US Department of Treasury will issue waivers for the export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products, and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc.
The United States of America undertakes to make fully available for use the frozen or restricted funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran upon the implementation of this MOU. The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedures related to the release of these funds during the negotiations. Such funds, whether retained in the original account or transferred, shall be made fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States of America undertakes to issue all necessary licenses and authorizations accordingly.
The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran agree that an executive mechanism will be established to monitor the successful implementation of this MOU and the future compliance of the final deal.
After signing this MOU and subject to the beginning of the implementation of paragraphs 1,4,5,10, and 11 of this MOU and the continuing implementation of these measures, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will start negotiations regarding the final deal exclusively on the other paragraphs.

The final deal will be endorsed by a binding UNSC resolution.

Verification: https://www.npr.org/2026/06/18/nx-s1-5863027/us-iran-trump-memorandum-of-understanding-full-text

The Case for Green Hydrogen

Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the visible universe, is the primary fuel of the stars, undergoing nuclear fusion to form helium and release vast amounts of energy. With current knowhow, the hydrogen to helium conversion cannot be reversed. Helium is a noble gas; it is very unreactive because its outermost (and only) electron shell is completely filled. Thus, the helium floating in the universe is a byproduct of hydrogen fusion with no known specific purpose or function. Accordingly, absent an unknown mechanism that continually creates hydrogen on a human timescale, its fusion mode is not considered a renewable form of energy. Hydrogen is also the lightest element in the periodic table, with the simple atomic structure of one proton and one electron. It is considered an energy carrier because it stores, transports, and delivers energy produced from primary sources like fossil fuels, solar, biomass, and wind power. Most of the Earth’s hydrogen is held within its mantle and core. The core is estimated to contain four or five global ocean’s worth of hydrogen, and the mantle two global ocean’s worth of hydrogen. However, currently this internally stored hydrogen is commercially inaccessible. The vast majority of the ocean’s hydrogen is locked in water molecules. Recent (as of June 2024) and ongoing advances in direct seawater electrolysis make it increasingly feasible to produce hydrogen directly from the ocean.

Types of Hydrogen

Hydrogen is classified by its isotropic composition (protium, deuterium, tritium) and by its production method, which uses color codes:

Green Hydrogen: Is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis using electricity generated from renewable energy sources like solar, wind, or geothermal. The sun and the ocean are readily available and inexhaustible on a human timescale. Better yet, so far no one has successfully claimed to own them; therefore, at least for now, they’re still free. Accordingly, subject to physical limitations, any country with direct access to the ocean and endowed with abundant renewable energy could theoretically produce any amount of green hydrogen; and the profits would be theirs alone to keep. Currently hydrogen is more expensive than fossil fuels. One reason is that the costs of the damage caused by anthropomorphic climate change, including health issues, environmental harm, and extreme weather events are considered “externalities” not added to the price of fuels. Recognizing these costs would likely boost inflation and health and real estate insurance premiums; and create new taxes to generate the revenue the government needs, and will need, to effect widespread repairs from worsening environmental disasters. Since political opposition to all of the above is nearly universal -and to understate it- extraordinarily strong, chances are it won’t happen any time soon. Unsurprisingly, as of 2023 only about 0.15% of global hydrogen production is green. Green hydrogen is projected to achieve price parity with blue hydrogen (see below) by 2030.
Indigo Hydrogen (suggested): Generated at high temperatures (typically 45-80 degrees Celsius) by thermophilic hydrogen-producing bacteria inhabiting deep-sea hydrothermal vent fields. These bacteria are of interest for potential biohydrogen production and waste treatment.
White Hydrogen: Found in underground geological formations. While naturally produced and combustion-neutral, it is a relatively rare and currently insignificant source of fuel. These “wells” resemble fossil fuels to the extent that they are in specific locations. Not all countries with access to the ocean and renewable energy sources have white hydrogen reserves. As a result, rights to the wells would be vested in a small minority of the population; that would exacerbate inequality within and among nations.
Blue Hydrogen: Derived from fossil fuels, most commonly natural gas, but with the significant addition of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology to trap the carbon dioxide produced during the process.
Grey Hydrogen: Made from natural gas via steam methane reformation, similar to blue hydrogen, but without the capture and storage of the resulting CO2, making it a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Black and Brown Hydrogen: Produced from black (bituminous) or brown (lignite) coal, respectively, through processes like coal gasification. These are the most environmentally damaging types due to their high carbon emissions.
Pink/Red Hydrogen: Produced using electricity from nuclear power. Pink hydrogen typically uses nuclear power for electrolysis, while red hydrogen might use nuclear power to fuel the grid, which then powers electrolysis.
Turquoise Hydrogen: A newer method that involves methane pyrolysis, where methane is split into hydrogen and solid carbon, avoiding CO2 emissions.

The Hydrogen/Water Nexus

The Earth is quasi-spherical and its axis of rotation and orbital motion are such that the entire planet is eventually exposed to sunlight. Approximately 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. Of that, about 96.5% is saltwater and 3.5% freshwater, with 68% of the latter frozen in Greenland and Antarctica. That leaves only 1.1% in usable surface water, and some of it is frozen a good part of the year. Furthermore, freshwater is not evenly distributed. For example, the North American Great Lakes contain approximately 21% of the world’s surface freshwater; in contrast, the Sahara Desert, an expanse slightly smaller than the entire Lower 48 United States, has only 1% of the world’s freshwater.

The natural water cycle does not favor the world’s arid regions; in fact, since most of the Earth’s surface is covered with water, it follows that most natural precipitation falls directly on the ocean. In addition, anthropomorphic climate change is exacerbating droughts and water insecurity: roughly half of the world’s population already experience severe water scarcity for at least part of the year. What’s worse, a feasible coordinated global effort designed to counteract the water shortage simply doesn’t exist; at least it’s not publicly known to be on any multinational agenda.

Importance of Green Hydrogen

Hydrogen alone has the unique property to make water (as steam) when it’s burned. As long as renewable energy is available, the hydrogen/water dynamic is a perpetual cycle. Fossil fuels, nuclear fission, and other renewable forms of energy can’t and don’t do that. As for fusion, which consumes 4 hydrogen protons to make one atom of helium-4, it in fact permanently reduces the existing volume of hydrogen with which to make water. In other words, given humanity’s fertile imagination and insatiable lust for power, in due course new energy-hungry applications and weapons will undoubtedly emerge that may eventually irreversibly deplete the ocean just as we have depleted the aquifers. Another Mars.

Unlike fossil fuels and fissionable elements, which must be mined and transported from wherever they are found to centralized plants, oceanfront countries that choose to produce hydrogen would be free to extract it without paying royalties to intermediaries and to become, at their sole discretion, energy (green hydrogen) self-sufficient and/or exporters. At that point a formula could be created and adopted by simple majority consensus of all recognized sovereign nations to replace the International Money Fund’s (IMF) Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket of privileged fiat currencies. The new formula would determine the relative value of all currencies based on national per capita production and use of green hydrogen.

Individual nations would retain complete fiscal control and be fully responsible for their respective sovereign debts; but countries that choose to overprint money would be unable to export their inflation. One practical ramification of this built-in anti-spending discipline (famously espoused by Thomas Jefferson) might be to nudge all nuclear powers to actually abolish nuclear weapons as specified in Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, before said weapons abolish us.

There is nothing on the horizon to combat extreme wealth inequality within and among nations and its consequences; and nowhere is it steeper than in the United States. This chart vividly illustrates the difference in gross domestic product (GDP) and population density between the American East and West.

The remarkably similar American and Chinese pattern of nightlights is intrinsically linked to the availability of water. This empirically implies that a prerequisite for higher GDP is, in fact, abundant water. The conclusion is therefore obvious: to boost GDP water must be available where and when it’s needed. Since the natural water cycle fails to do that, it’s up to humanity to literally create a source that does. What’s more, the new infrastructure should be specifically designed to distribute future growth equitably to counteract the catastrophic impact that artificial intelligence (AI) and automation (robots) combined will likely have on the labor market and society at large. Only green hydrogen, by virtue of its unique ability to literally make water in inland areas far from any shore, where desalination is impractical or impossible, can effectively replace fossil fuels and nuclear fission to power such industries as green metals, cement, glass, plastics, fertilizers, shipping, aviation, heavy transportation, leisure and hospitality, among many others. And we’re running out of time.

De-dollarization and Oil

De-dollarization is not an abstract, insignificant concept. It is most pervasive in commodity markets, particularly energy, where a growing number of transactions are being priced in non-dollar denominated contracts. This is an offshoot of Western sanctions on Russian energy due to the Ukrainian conflict. To cope, Russia diverted energy exports eastward and southward and sold them either in the local currencies of buyers, or in countries Russia perceives as friendly. These include China, India and Turkey. Even Saudi Arabia has been considering adding yuan-denominated futures contracts, albeit at a slower pace.

The trend has also been gaining ground in cross-border yuan settlements beyond oil. Some Indian businesses have been paying for Russian coal imports in yuan, even without Chinese intermediaries. Bangladesh too recently decided to pay Russia for its 1.4 GW nuclear power plant in yuan.

Conversely, deposit dollarization is still widespread in emerging market countries, particularly in Latin America, with an aggregate dollarization rate of 19.1%. In contrast, Asia has the lowest at 9.7%. As for China, its dollarization rate has been persistently falling since 2017, when U.S. – China relations markedly began to be increasingly characterized by the trade war and growing geopolitical tensions.

The trend is poisonous to the U.S. economy, which relies on the petrodollar to attract liquidity for government securities and Wall Street. A steep, irreversible decline in the use of the dollar would magnify the weight of the perennial fiscal and trade deficits, the accumulated debt, and the probability of hyperinflation. The danger here, never before seen, is that China’s unrivaled status as factory of the world is increasingly acceptable simply because its currency can be redeemed for all sorts of consumer goods. In addition, other countries hope to export to its vast consumer market.

Viewed in that context, it’s easy to see why the U.S., for all practical purposes, acquired complete control of Venezuela’s oil deposits, and reserved the right of first refusal of Canada’s tar sands. Africa and the rest of Latin America are not a problem.

Iran is. Not only because of the size of its indigenous oil reserves, but because, as we have seen, it is determined to reject American dominance in the extreme. As it now stands, it can threaten American bases in the Persian Gulf, close the Strait of Hormuz, and, if needed and approved by its theocratic rulers, swallow the poison pill and actually destroy all oil and gas infrastructure and water desalination plants in the Middle East, including Israel. Needless to say, a blow of that magnitude to the economy and the very viability of the countries in the region, and indeed the world, simply cannot be underestimated.

Iran is also ground zero of the underlying rivalry between the U.S. and China, and, as fierce supporter of the Palestinian cause, a dangerous threat to Israel’s policy regarding Judea and Samaria, otherwise known as the occupied Palestinian Territories. If Iran succeeds in evicting the U.S., it may accelerate the demise of the dollar as reserve currency of the world, with ominous potential ramifications for both the U.S. and Israel. If the U.S. prevails, it will give it the ability to dictate the price of oil, indefinitely preserve the petrodollar, and determine who gets how much oil and who does not. In other words, it would put China in the same situation Japan found itself in in 1941, when the U.S. embargoed its oil supply. The de facto conquest of Iran would also inherently bury the Palestinians’ hope of statehood.

As things now stand, they’re on a collision course, and no one seems to have concocted a compromise to prevent a terminal war. This need not be. Despite their best efforts to decouple, China and the U.S. are each other’s best customers and stand to gain more than they may realize, if only they come up with a neutral plan to support each other’s needs.

For example, they could negotiate and agree on a timetable to transition from fossil fuels to green hydrogen, and to make it, on a per capita basis, the universal determinant of the relative value of all currencies. For practical purposes, that would redistribute future wealth more equitably among and within all nations and perhaps even usher in long-term peace.

Incidentally, to say the least, it would be good for the environment.

Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe’s energy mix is heavily reliant on biomass (wood fuel) for residential heating and cooking (approx. 60–70% of total supply), while electricity generation depends primarily on coal and hydropower. The country faces chronic power shortages due to aging infrastructure, low water levels at Kariba Dam, and a ~1200 MW supply against ~2000 MW demand. Solar is growing, particularly for farming irrigation and industrial use, to reduce strain on the grid.

Zimbabwe is advancing green hydrogen development to combat energy shortages and drive decarbonization.

WikiSolver

Economic & Political Solutions

Author: Solver1