Gemini Sees Rapid Growth in User Numbers
Google Accelerates Efforts to Boost AI Model Adoption Across Smart Devices and Content Creation
Market Leader OpenAI Falters as Push for Commercialization Stumbles

Google is gaining recognition for its investment value in the artificial intelligence (AI) market. By leveraging consumer-friendly business strategies and high-quality services, the company has rapidly strengthened its position in the industry. In contrast, its rival OpenAI faces a potential financial crisis as its attempts at commercialization have faltered.

Gemini’s Rapid Rise

On June 23 (local time), global asset investor A.J. Burton published a report on Seeking Alpha, a financial news and analysis platform, asserting that Google’s newly launched AI subscription services offer equivalent features to OpenAI’s ChatGPT Plus—at the same price point—while providing additional benefits. His remarks were understood to refer to Google’s “AI Premium” and “Ultra Plan” tiers, launched on May 20. These plans match ChatGPT Plus in core features but include extras like 2 terabytes of cloud storage and Agent AI capabilities. Google is thus positioning itself as a more user-centric alternative to OpenAI in its push to secure market share.

Google is also doubling down on improving service quality. On June 17, the company announced via its official blog the full release of the Gemini 2.5 Flash and Pro models, along with a preview of the Flash-Lite model. The Pro model, a high-performance system that has topped benchmark rankings alongside OpenAI’s o3-pro model, attracted attention even before launch. Previously available only in testing environments, the Gemini 2.5 line is praised for its speed, affordability, and strong performance, making it suitable for a wide range of real-time applications.

These efforts are translating into explosive user growth. Internal documents revealed during Google’s ongoing antitrust trial showed that as of March 2025, Gemini had 35 million daily active users (DAU) and 350 million monthly active users (MAU) globally. That’s nearly a fourfold increase from October 2024, when DAU stood at just 9 million.

Expanding the Scope of AI Applications

Google’s AI user base is expected to continue expanding, thanks to its aggressive strategy of broadening AI integration beyond search into devices and content creation. At the Google I/O 2025 developer conference held on May 20, the company unveiled its next-generation search feature, AI Mode, an upgraded version of last year’s “AI Overview.” This multimodal conversational search feature can process and respond to a variety of inputs, including text, voice, images, and video.

In addition, Google announced plans to launch XR-based smart glasses later this year in collaboration with Samsung Electronics, South Korea’s Gentle Monster, and U.S.-based Warby Parker. The glasses will sync with smartphones, enabling hands-free access to apps that offer real-time translation, navigation, and camera-sharing features. Google emphasized that the glasses will support multimodal AI powered by Gemini, for both prescription and non-prescription lenses. The company also confirmed that Gemini features will be expanded to other platforms in the coming months, including Wear OS smartwatches, Android Auto, Google TV, and the Chrome browser.

In the field of generative content, Google is rolling out proprietary AI tools in a direct challenge to industry leaders like OpenAI’s Sora and DALL·E. On the same day, Google introduced Veo 3, a video-generation AI capable of producing cinematic-quality content by integrating sound effects, background audio, and dialogue. Also unveiled was Imagen 4, an image generation model that creates 2K high-resolution visuals with extremely fine textures and detail, setting a new bar for precision in visual AI output.

With a sharply expanding user base, aggressive platform integration, and bold forays into content creation, Google’s Gemini ecosystem is now emerging as one of the strongest contenders in the global AI race, positioning the company to challenge and potentially outpace OpenAI in multiple arenas.

Is ChatGPT Facing a Cash Crunch?

While Google is making significant strides in the AI market, industry heavyweight OpenAI is struggling to maintain its momentum. The company’s attempt to restructure as a for-profit entity has effectively been withdrawn, exacerbating its financial challenges.

Founded in 2015 with the mission of creating “AI for everyone,” OpenAI initially operated as a nonprofit organization. In 2019, due to rising research costs, it established a for-profit subsidiary, OpenAI Global, which is controlled by the nonprofit board. This entity handles AI development and commercialization, operating under a unique structure as a “capped-profit company.” The nonprofit parent makes major decisions, and any profits exceeding a 100x return on investment are redirected to the nonprofit.

Despite this hybrid model, OpenAI has been unable to cover its rapidly escalating costs of AI development. As a result, the company began exploring the option of converting its current for-profit subsidiary, which is still under nonprofit board oversight, into a public benefit corporation (PBC). PBCs are mission-driven firms that publicly declare a commitment to the public good, but unlike nonprofits, they are not legally obligated to prioritize that mission over profit. Transitioning to a PBC would eliminate the capped-profit model, making it easier for OpenAI to attract outside investment.

The problem, however, lies in the widespread opposition to OpenAI’s profit-driven pivot. Several influential voices, including Geoffrey Hinton, Nobel laureate and professor at the University of Toronto, and Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta, submitted letters to courts and to the governments of California and Delaware, opposing OpenAI’s move toward commercialization.

Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and one of OpenAI’s early investors, also filed a lawsuit, accusing OpenAI of breaching its founding agreements by abandoning its nonprofit commitment in pursuit of profit. Facing mounting criticism, OpenAI ultimately backed away from the structural overhaul. Last month, the company posted a statement on its website confirming that even if it restructured as a public benefit corporation, the nonprofit board would retain control over OpenAI’s governance, a move widely interpreted as a concession to growing public and legal pressure.

U.S. Military Intervention Created a Decisive Turning Point
Ceasefire Took Effect on June 24, 24 Hours After the Announcement
Both Sides Must Maintain Mutual Respect During the Ceasefire Period

Iran and Israel have reached a sudden ceasefire agreement through mediation by the United States, Qatar, and other key Middle Eastern nations. The war, which began 12 days ago with Israel’s airstrike on Iran, has now come to an end. Analysts say that the U.S.’s swift military intervention played a decisive role in preventing a full-scale war by weakening Iran’s will to retaliate.

However, concerns remain that tensions could flare up again at any time, given unresolved structural conflicts in the region, such as Iran’s potential resumption of nuclear development, shifting positions among Sunni Arab states, continued activity by proxy forces like the Houthi rebels, and the challenges of rebuilding Gaza.

Iran and Israel Effectively Agree to Ceasefire

On June 22 (local time), U.S. President Donald Trump announced via his social media platform Truth Social around 6 p.m. Eastern Time that “Israel and Iran have agreed to implement a complete and total ceasefire,” adding that “the war will officially end 24 hours from now.” He further explained, “The ceasefire will begin six hours after both sides complete their current final operations and withdraw. Iran will initiate the ceasefire, and 12 hours later, Israel will follow.”

Trump designated June 24—the scheduled start date of the ceasefire—as the reference point to define the active duration of the conflict, which he termed the “12-Day War.” He stated, “During the ceasefire period, both sides must maintain mutual respect,” and continued, “Assuming everything proceeds as planned, we celebrate the persistence, courage, and wisdom that brought this war to an end.” He emphasized, “This war could have lasted for years and devastated the entire Middle East—but that didn’t happen, and it never will.”

According to Reuters, the Iranian government initially issued an official denial shortly after Trump’s announcement, saying “no ceasefire agreement exists.” However, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi acknowledged that “if Israel halts its bombings, Iran will also stop its attacks,” effectively signaling agreement to a mutual cessation of hostilities. Israel did not release an official statement, which observers interpreted as a tacit acceptance of the mediated terms.

Meanwhile, Vice President J.D. Vance credited President Trump with securing the ceasefire, declaring, “In the future, the world will look back on America’s strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a pivotal reset moment for the Middle East.”

Qatar and Other Middle Eastern Nations Drive Diplomatic Push

The latest armed conflict began on the 12th, when Israel launched a surprise airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and military bases. Framing the attack as a preemptive measure to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program and military threats, Israel targeted key sites in Natanz, Isfahan, and Tehran, resulting in the deaths of several high-ranking figures, including Iran’s Chief of Staff, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and leading nuclear scientists.

Eighteen hours later, Iran retaliated with a massive ballistic missile strike under “Operation Promise III,” triggering a cycle of reciprocal missile and drone attacks between the two nations.

Amid escalating tensions, the United States' full-scale military intervention marked a decisive turning point in the region. Initially, President Trump appeared to favor diplomacy, stating he could make a military decision “within two weeks.” However, his actions came much sooner than anticipated. On June 21, shortly after warning that Iran would face “a more forceful response” if it failed to pursue peace, the U.S. military launched precision strikes using B-2 stealth bombers and nuclear-powered submarines on three Iranian nuclear sites: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow—abandoning the two-week timeline for immediate, decisive action.

Two days later, on June 23, Iran launched 14 ballistic missiles at the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar as a limited retaliatory measure. However, because Iran had informed Qatar in advance, the damage was minimized: 13 of the missiles were intercepted, and no casualties were reported. Analysts widely interpreted the attack as symbolic, aimed more at saving face than inflicting harm. President Trump quickly commented, “Iran responded far more weakly than we expected.” He further added, "Now we can move toward peace." He also emphasized that Israel should show restraint and commit to a peaceful resolution.

Following Iran’s pullback in the face of overwhelming U.S. pressure, active mediation by Middle Eastern countries played a pivotal role in securing the ceasefire. According to Reuters, on June 23, Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed Al Thani held direct phone calls with Iranian officials to urge acceptance of the U.S.-backed ceasefire proposal.

In addition, foreign ministers from 20 countries—including Saudi Arabia, Oman, the UAE, Jordan, and Egypt—issued a joint statement calling for an end to Israeli hostilities, the establishment of peace, and renewed U.S.-Iran diplomatic engagement.

Speculation Over Regime Change in Iran Emerges

With direct hostilities between Iran and Israel entering a lull, international attention has now shifted to the post-ceasefire dynamics in the Middle East. Among analysts, some are beginning to raise the possibility of regime change in Iran.

On June 22, President Trump posted on Truth Social, “The term ‘regime change’ may not be politically correct, but if the current Iranian regime cannot make Iran great again, there’s no reason not to change it.” He ended the post with the phrase “MIGA – Make Iran Great Again,” suggesting that a regime change could be justified if living conditions for the Iranian people do not improve.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed similar sentiments during an interview with Fox News conducted during the conflict. Asked whether regime change in Iran was part of the military operation’s objective, Netanyahu responded: “We are prepared to do everything to eliminate the nuclear and missile threat.” He further noted, “Given how vulnerable the Iranian regime is, regime change is certainly a possible outcome.”
After Israel’s airstrikes, Netanyahu also remarked, “The Iranian people must rise against their evil regime.” Many analysts speculate that this is Israel's open call for internal resistance in Iran.

Observers warn that despite the ceasefire, the region has entered a phase of unstable equilibrium, where the surface calm masks underlying and unresolved tensions. Though Iran and Israel, under international pressure, opted for pragmatic restraint and avoided full-scale war, structural fault lines remain.

These include Iran’s potential resumption of nuclear development, the ongoing activity of proxy groups like the Houthis, the reconstruction of Gaza, and the enduring conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Additional factors, such as shifts in U.S. Middle East policy and the deepening of diplomatic ties between Gulf Sunni states and global powers like Russia and China, are likely to shape future regional dynamics.

Applies to Non-Permanent Residents from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea
To Take Effect in September Following Governor Abbott’s Signature
Groups Like 'Asian Texans for Justice' Plan to File Lawsuit

The governor of Texas has signed a bill banning Chinese nationals from purchasing real estate within the state, signaling the spread of anti-China sentiment in the United States to the property market. Although the law is set to take effect in September, it is expected to face strong opposition and legal challenges from Asian American advocacy groups, potentially leading to a prolonged court battle.

Texas Enacts Law Banning Real Estate Purchases by Chinese Nationals

On the 23rd (local time), the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed a bill on the 21st that prohibits foreign nationals—including Chinese citizens—from purchasing real estate in the state, except when the property is intended for residential use and the buyer holds a valid visa.

Earlier in February, during the legislative process, Governor Abbott had posted on social media: “This bill prohibits hostile foreign entities from purchasing land in Texas." Governor Abbott emphasized, “It must be passed during this session.”

The legislation restricts individuals, corporations, and government institutions from four countries, China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, from purchasing real estate in the state of Texas. While permanent residents (green card holders) and U.S. citizens are exempt, nationals of the four countries are barred from buying property for investment purposes. The law is scheduled to take effect on September 1.

Supporters of the law argue it is crucial to shield Texas residents from the influence of "hostile nations" like China. However, critics, particularly among Chinese Americans, warn that the law could unfairly exclude individuals from housing opportunities simply based on their appearance or assumptions about their nationality. Alice Yi, co-founder of Asian Texans for Justice, stated that several Asian American organizations are planning to support lawsuits challenging the law.

A comparable legal dispute is already unfolding in Florida. The U.S. Court of Appeals accepted a lawsuit filed by four Chinese immigrants contesting a law that restricts property ownership for citizens of China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Syria, and Venezuela. In a 2023 letter to a Florida district court, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that the law violates the federal Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Over Two-Thirds of U.S. States Move to Restrict Foreign Ownership of Real Estate

Efforts to ban Chinese nationals from purchasing real estate in the U.S. are spreading beyond Texas and gaining momentum nationwide. According to Politico, more than two-thirds of U.S. states have either enacted or are considering laws restricting or prohibiting land ownership by foreign nationals—many of which specifically name China.

In January, Republican senators in Arkansas introduced the “Not One More Inch or Acre Act,” a bill that prohibits Chinese nationals, entities, or foreign individuals acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist Party from purchasing public or private land in the United States.

Florida already passed a law in 2023 banning citizens of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and Syria from owning agricultural land or property near military bases. Similar laws have been approved by state legislatures in South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana, Nebraska, Virginia, Utah, Iowa, West Virginia, and Montana. Other states, including Ohio, Michigan, and Georgia, are reportedly reviewing legislation that would limit foreign ownership of land.

Efforts to curb property ownership by Chinese nationals are also underway at the federal level. On June 6, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed: “We must stop China from buying up American land for espionage and other threats.”

Last month, Brooke Rollins, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, told the House Appropriations Committee that the administration is developing a federal plan to restrict Chinese access to U.S. land.

These actions align with growing concern in Washington. Vice President J.D. Vance, who has long called for reclaiming U.S. farmland and real estate from Chinese entities, has stated: “We must not allow even a single blade of grass to fall into China’s hands.”

Real Estate Purchases Viewed as National and Food Security Threat

The push to limit Chinese property ownership is not merely a real estate issue but is increasingly seen as a matter of national and food security. Politico notes that public anxiety is mounting over Chinese land acquisitions, especially those near sensitive military installations.

This movement is occurring amid rising tensions between the U.S. and China over trade, technology, and national security. According to U.S. Department of Agriculture data, by 2023, Chinese investors owned land in the United States equivalent to twice the area of New York City.

There is particular concern over Chinese purchases near airports, ports, and military bases. In 2021, controversy erupted in Texas after a businessman and former PLA general purchased 130,000 acres near a U.S. Air Force base. In 2023, a Chinese company bought land near another Air Force base in North Dakota, sparking allegations of potential military espionage.

Concerns are not limited to the U.S. In Switzerland last year, a Chinese family named Wang purchased a hotel located near a military base set to host sensitive data on F-35 stealth fighter jets. The incident raised suspicions that the purchase was part of an attempt to obtain classified fighter technology, prompting international alarms over China's global real estate strategy and its implications for military intelligence.

These developments underscore growing concerns that Chinese ownership of strategic real estate may pose significant threats to national security, fueling an intensifying legal, political, and diplomatic backlash across the United States and beyond.

Lane Confusion and Speeding Among Issues Revealed
“Pressed the Stop Button — Car Halted in the Middle of the Road”
U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Now Collecting Information

Tesla’s highly anticipated foray into autonomous ride-hailing, ‘Robotaxi’, was meant to be a bold statement to the world — proof that CEO Elon Musk’s vision of a driverless future was finally within reach. Investors and enthusiasts alike had pinned high hopes on this milestone, with Tesla’s stock surging nearly 50% since April, fueled by the belief that Robotaxi could become a new growth engine amid recent struggles with slumping EV sales and mounting criticism over Musk’s increasingly polarizing political engagements.

But rather than showcasing a technological triumph, Robotaxi’s first day on the road revealed a sobering reality: autonomous driving is still fraught with unresolved challenges, operational flaws, and serious safety concerns. Far from the seamless, futuristic mobility Musk promised, the service instead delivered a troubling display of technical limitations that raises questions not only about Tesla’s readiness, but also about the broader feasibility of full self-driving technology.

Operational Failures Exposed, Captured in Real Time

On June 21, Tesla quietly launched its Robotaxi pilot program in Austin, Texas, deploying just 10 vehicles for a select group of social media influencers. Unlike major public unveilings, this event was intentionally limited, perhaps suggesting internal caution about the system’s readiness. Nevertheless, the goal was clear: to demonstrate that Tesla’s Robotaxi, a cornerstone of its projected USD 1 trillion valuation, was a credible leap toward an autonomous future that Musk has long promised would “replace Uber” and redefine urban transportation.

Reality, however, told a different story. Robotaxi vehicles were confined to designated zones, carefully avoiding Austin’s more complex intersections and high-traffic routes. This limitation stood in stark contrast to earlier claims that the technology was capable of navigating real-world urban environments independently. Even more conspicuous was the presence of a Tesla employee sitting in the passenger seat, serving as a safety monitor — an arrangement that undermines the image of true autonomy. This setup diverges from competitors like Waymo, whose fully driverless vehicles operate without anyone inside.

The driving errors themselves were impossible to ignore. Multiple influencers documented sequences where Robotaxi struggled with basic road navigation and traffic rules. In one widely shared video by podcaster Rob Maurer, the vehicle attempted to enter a left-turn lane but then suddenly veered into the right lane, momentarily trespassing into a lane meant for oncoming traffic. The car crossed a solid yellow centerline — a serious traffic violation — before hastily correcting itself amid honking from nearby drivers. Thankfully, the adjacent lanes were clear, narrowly avoiding a collision.

Another troubling example came from influencer Sawyer Merritt, whose video captured the Robotaxi accelerating to 35 mph (56 km/h) immediately after passing a 30 mph (48 km/h) speed limit sign. This was not a momentary glitch but sustained speeding, highlighting a serious lapse in the system’s ability to recognize and respond to posted speed limits.

Similarly, YouTuber Herbert Ong, with over 120,000 subscribers, documented the vehicle exceeding speed limits within a 35 mph zone, reinforcing concerns that the problem was not isolated.

Perhaps most jarring was a video from Bearded Tesla Guy, which showed what happened when the passenger pressed an in-app button designed to instruct the Robotaxi to pull over. Instead of safely navigating to the curb, the vehicle stopped abruptly in the middle of an active traffic lane, posing an immediate hazard. Even after contacting Tesla’s remote operations center, the vehicle struggled to resolve the situation, requiring further human intervention to complete what should have been a simple stop.

Federal Scrutiny and the Return of Safety Questions

As these operational failures ricocheted across social media, they drew immediate attention from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) — the federal agency responsible for road safety. The NHTSA quickly launched an inquiry, confirming that it was “gathering additional information” and had reached out to Tesla in response to the footage and reports.

This isn’t Tesla’s first clash with the agency. In February 2023, the NHTSA ordered the company to issue a recall affecting over 362,000 vehicles equipped with its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software. That recall was triggered by concerns that FSD could violate local traffic laws, including failures to properly execute intersection turns, respond to stop signs, and obey traffic lights.

Recent disclosures reveal that the NHTSA had asked Tesla to submit detailed plans for how it would ensure the safety of Robotaxi operations under adverse conditions, such as low visibility. Tesla, however, refused, citing the need to protect “commercially sensitive information” under federal trade secrecy laws. The company argued that disclosing such details could “aid competitors” developing rival autonomous driving technologies.

Tesla’s defensive posture is raising eyebrows. This lack of transparency echoes previous tensions with regulators over how much the company should be required to reveal about the safety and limitations of its self-driving systems.

For now, Austin city officials confirmed that no formal accident reports or safety complaints have been filed regarding Robotaxi. Nonetheless, NHTSA emphasized that the agency does not pre-approve autonomous systems before deployment. Instead, it relies on manufacturers to self-certify that their vehicles meet federal safety standards — a process that critics argue leaves too much room for error when unproven technology is involved.

“Full Autonomy Is Still a Distant Dream”

The setbacks surrounding Robotaxi’s debut have rekindled a long-running debate: Is fully autonomous driving truly within reach, or is it still a distant goal wrapped in premature promises?

No one articulated this concern better than Andrej Karpathy, Tesla’s former Director of AI and one of the architects behind its self-driving technology. Speaking at a recent Y Combinator “AI Startup School”, Karpathy delivered a candid assessment that stood in stark contrast to Elon Musk’s relentless optimism.

“Full self-driving is still an unsolved problem,” Karpathy stated unequivocally. “We should be cautious about believing that the era of autonomous vehicles is just around the corner.”

Karpathy reflected on his experience testing Google’s (now Waymo) self-driving prototype back in 2013, describing how the vehicle navigated 30 minutes around Palo Alto without issue. At the time, he believed that autonomy was imminent. “But here we are, 12 years later, and the same problems still persist,” he said.

Even today, Waymo’s fleet — considered one of the most advanced — relies heavily on remote human intervention to manage situations beyond the vehicle’s capabilities. “It looks autonomous on the surface, but human oversight is still very much part of the equation,” Karpathy added.

EV-focused media outlet Electrek further criticized the Robotaxi rollout, calling it a “supervised driving service in disguise” rather than true autonomy. The outlet remarked that having a Tesla employee in the passenger seat, combined with remote support staff on standby, merely shifts the role of the safety driver rather than eliminating it.

Electrek’s scathing conclusion was blunt: “Tesla’s continued promises, repeated delays, and the release of an incomplete system make the push for Robotaxi commercialization seem more like a marketing ploy than a genuine technological breakthrough.”

Indeed, Tesla’s current FSD system can reportedly operate for hundreds of miles without intervention — but only under favorable conditions. To meet the global benchmark for true Level 4 autonomy, vehicles must demonstrate tens of thousands of miles of completely hands-off, disengagement-free driving — something Tesla’s system is still nowhere close to achieving.

The Robotaxi’s troubled debut has not only failed to silence skeptics but has instead reaffirmed an uncomfortable truth. Despite years of hype and billions in investment, the dream of fully autonomous vehicles remains stubbornly out of reach.

S&P Global Services PMI Preliminary at 53.1
U.S. Economy Still in ‘Expansion Phase’
Michelle Bowman: “If Inflation is Contained, I Support a July Rate Cut”

The U.S. economy is now grappling with a precarious mix of slowing momentum and intensifying external pressures. As inflation fears resurface — driven in part by Donald Trump’s aggressive tariff policies — the Federal Reserve faces mounting pressure to act. Simultaneously, fresh geopolitical risks, including the U.S.'s direct military engagement in Iran, threaten to further destabilize energy markets, heighten uncertainty, and complicate the Fed’s already delicate balancing act. Amid this complex backdrop, the prospect of a July interest rate cut is rapidly gaining traction, even as inflation data sends conflicting signals.

Solid Growth on the Surface, Inflation Brewing Beneath

Despite loud warnings about the economic damage tariffs might cause, the latest data suggests that the U.S. economy remains fundamentally resilient — at least for now. According to S&P Global’s preliminary report released on June 23, the U.S. Services Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) for June came in at 53.1, only slightly below May’s 53.7, signaling ongoing expansion despite a mild slowdown. The Manufacturing PMI remained unchanged at 52.0, holding steady at its highest level in 15 months, a reflection of stable industrial activity.

Particularly noteworthy was the rebound in the Manufacturing Output Index, which rose to 51.5 from 49.4 in May — its first return to expansion territory in four months. This uptick signals renewed manufacturing activity, supported primarily by robust domestic demand rather than exports.

However, the story isn't entirely reassuring. While domestic orders in manufacturing picked up, exports have continued to struggle, declining again in June after a brief rebound in May. In the services sector, new orders increased, but the rate of growth decelerated, and most concerningly, service exports fell for the third straight month, marking the largest quarterly drop since late 2022.

Beneath the solid headline numbers, inflationary pressures are quietly intensifying. Both manufacturing and services sectors reported noticeable price surges, with manufacturing experiencing the fastest jump in input and selling prices since July 2022. Alarmingly, around two-thirds of manufacturing firms reported rising input costs, while more than half attributed higher selling prices directly to tariffs.

The service sector is also grappling with compounding cost pressures stemming from tariffs, higher wages, rising fuel prices, and elevated financing costs. This convergence of cost-push factors threatens to feed inflation in ways that could be difficult to tame if left unchecked.

Chris Williamson, Chief Economist at S&P Global, contextualized the situation: “The U.S. economy continues to grow at the end of Q2, but inflation has accelerated again in the past two months.” He added that businesses appear to be stockpiling inventories and expanding hiring, likely in response to supply chain anxieties and efforts to preempt tariff-induced price increases. Yet, he warned, this type of growth could be transitory, lacking sustainable momentum if underlying price pressures persist.

The broader economic picture is reflected in the Composite PMI, which fell modestly to 52.8 from May’s 53.0, still above the key 50-point threshold that signifies expansion. However, the downward trend signals growing economic fragility beneath the surface stability.

The Fed’s Tightrope: Growth Resilient but Risks Mount

For the Federal Reserve, the latest data presents a formidable policy challenge. On one hand, resilient growth metrics suggest there’s no immediate need to rush into cutting interest rates. On the other hand, tariff-driven price pressures and global instability are muddying the outlook, making the path forward anything but clear.

Amid this backdrop, Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, widely regarded as one of the Fed’s most hawkish members, made remarks that are attracting significant attention. Despite her reputation for favoring tight monetary policy, Bowman signaled her openness to a rate cut, perhaps as soon as the July Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting, provided that inflation does not spike further.

“We have not observed any meaningful negative economic impact from recent trade developments or other external factors,” Bowman stated. “The U.S. economy continues to demonstrate resilience despite a modest slowdown.”

On the inflation front, Bowman struck a surprisingly reassuring tone, explaining that the upward pressure on goods prices due to tariffs is being offset by other factors. More critically, she suggested that the underlying trend in core PCE (Personal Consumption Expenditures) inflation — the Fed’s preferred gauge — is trending much closer to the 2% target than headline numbers might imply.

Bowman also voiced confidence that current tariff levels could ultimately come down, stating, “We expect that trade negotiations will result in lower tariff rates over time, consistent with the optimism currently reflected in financial markets.” Even if inflation does materialize in the coming months, she emphasized that the U.S. economy's increased capacity — particularly stronger labor markets and industrial output — will help absorb much of the shock, reducing the need for aggressive policy intervention.

However, despite this cautious optimism within the Fed, the reality remains that the risk calculus is shifting. While inflationary pressures are currently seen as manageable, their persistence — especially when fueled by supply-side shocks like tariffs and energy prices — could force the Fed into a narrow decision corridor where delaying cuts could risk a deeper economic slowdown, while cutting too soon could inflame inflation.

Middle East Tensions Fuel Oil Shock Fears — and Trump’s Anxiety

Compounding the Fed’s dilemma are fast-escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. In a stunning escalation, the U.S. recently launched a direct airstrike on Iranian territory, marking a rare and bold move that immediately roiled global energy markets. The Middle East — often referred to as the “world’s powder keg” — is once again the epicenter of global economic risk.

The economic fallout could be severe. A sharp surge in oil prices would directly fuel inflation, exacerbating the very cost pressures already inflamed by tariffs. For the U.S. economy, which is already contending with slowing growth, a simultaneous oil shock could ignite stagflation — the dreaded combination of stagnation and inflation.

Recognizing this, President Trump moved swiftly into damage control. Deeply concerned about the political ramifications of soaring gas prices — particularly heading into an election season already burdened by tariff backlash — Trump reportedly leaned heavily on the energy industry and his Cabinet to hold fuel prices in check.

According to The New York Times, Trump posted a blunt message on social media on June 23: “Do not raise oil prices. Otherwise, you’re playing into the hands of our enemies. I’m watching you!” Alongside this public warning, he issued a direct order to the Department of Energy to immediately ramp up domestic crude oil production. Energy Secretary Chris Wright responded with a simple but telling reply: “Understood.”

But the math is unforgiving. With inflation already squeezing households thanks to tariffs and supply chain disruptions, any additional jump in fuel costs could become a severe political liability for Trump. The risk is not only economic; it’s also electoral. A fragile economy, surging gas prices, and growing consumer dissatisfaction could converge into a perfect storm — one that neither the White House nor the Fed can easily defuse.

The American economy is walking a razor’s edge. Resilient growth metrics offer comfort, but rising inflation driven by tariffs and the risk of an oil shock from Middle East tensions darken the outlook. The Federal Reserve faces a pivotal choice at its July policy meeting — to act preemptively with a rate cut or risk waiting too long as inflation and geopolitical shocks mount.

At the same time, President Trump’s aggressive foreign and trade policies, once touted as levers to strengthen America’s hand globally, are now ricocheting back into the domestic economy — threatening to tip the fragile balance between growth and inflation. Whether the combined weight of tariffs, military conflicts, and energy crises will push the U.S. economy off its current path remains the defining question of this summer.

Customer Undecided, Presumed for AMD
Strategy in Motion: Securing Both Supply Chain and Technological Capabilities
Possibility of Restructuring SK Hynix’s Market Dominance

The global race for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) supremacy is entering a critical phase, with Samsung Electronics preparing to launch mass production of its next-generation HBM4 in the latter half of 2025. Once a market dominated decisively by SK Hynix, the competitive terrain is shifting rapidly as technological innovation, customer diversification, and strategic independence become central to long-term success. Micron Technology has also thrown its hat into the ring, accelerating the tempo of competition. As demand for AI and cloud computing memory surges, HBM suppliers are not just fighting for market share—they're battling over who will supply the core memory powering the next wave of data-driven infrastructure.

Samsung’s Offensive: Advanced Process, U.S. Expansion, and Strategic Ties

Samsung’s HBM4 rollout marks a significant leap in its semiconductor roadmap. The sixth-generation memory will feature 2,048 data transfer channels—twice that of HBM3E—offering up to 2 terabytes per second of bandwidth. It is also the first Samsung HBM product to fully adopt the 1c DRAM process node, enhancing performance while improving energy efficiency and thermal output. This technological edge is pivotal as AI models become larger and more compute-intensive, demanding faster memory with lower power consumption.

The tech giant is backing this technological push with substantial manufacturing investment. Samsung is currently constructing a $16.5 billion (KRW 23 trillion) semiconductor plant in Taylor, Texas, a facility set to become a strategic hub for advanced semiconductors, including HBM and AI-centric chips. This site not only strengthens Samsung’s North American supply chain resilience but also serves as a counterweight to competitors’ packaging dependencies in Asia.

Despite this momentum, the company has yet to confirm a flagship customer for its HBM4 chips. However, industry observers believe AMD is a likely candidate. AMD is one of the few players besides NVIDIA with advanced GPU capabilities for AI accelerators and has already selected Samsung’s 12-layer HBM3E chips for its latest MI350X and MI355X models. Given AMD's urgency in launching its next-generation MI400 and MI500 accelerators, a deepened partnership with Samsung appears increasingly likely, and could serve as a breakthrough moment for Samsung's HBM market re-entry.

Meanwhile, Micron, another challenger, has begun sample shipments of its own 12-layer HBM4 chips, just three months behind SK Hynix. These samples, which deliver up to 1TB/s of bandwidth, are already undergoing performance validation with major hyperscalers such as Google and Amazon Web Services (AWS). Micron’s entrance signals not only broader supply diversity but also intensifying price and performance competition as HBM becomes the memory standard for AI workloads.

SK Hynix’s Stronghold and Structural Strains

SK Hynix has long been the leader in the HBM segment, holding over 52.5% of the global market share as of 2024 and supplying approximately 80% of NVIDIA’s HBM requirements. It has already secured the world’s first formal supply agreement for 12-layer HBM4 and began distributing product samples as early as March. With NVIDIA expected to release new-generation GPUs later this year, SK Hynix is prioritizing yield stabilization and supply chain consistency to maintain its market leadership.

However, this lead is increasingly encumbered by structural weaknesses—foremost among them, SK Hynix’s deep reliance on Taiwan’s TSMC for high-performance packaging. While this partnership has boosted product completeness, it has also exposed SK Hynix to pricing vulnerabilities. Key processes such as logic die production and chip integration are outsourced to TSMC, which significantly limits SK Hynix’s negotiation power. If TSMC raises prices, SK Hynix is effectively forced to comply, eroding its margins.

Further complicating matters is the inherently high cost and yield instability of HBM production compared to traditional DRAM. Delivering consistent quality to large-scale clients like NVIDIA and AMD requires tight control over packaging processes—control that SK Hynix currently lacks due to its dependence on external suppliers. Additionally, this structure increases the risk of technical leaks, a growing concern in a fiercely competitive, IP-sensitive landscape.

Samsung and Micron, in contrast, are investing in vertically integrated packaging capabilities. Their goal: reduce reliance on external partners, optimize cost structures, and secure proprietary know-how. Samsung’s adoption of 1c DRAM in HBM4, coupled with its Texas fab, and Micron’s progress with in-house integration and validation with top-tier cloud providers, all signify long-term structural advantages that could erode SK Hynix’s lead over time.

To navigate these headwinds, SK Hynix is reportedly exploring expanded investments in packaging infrastructure and is considering strategic adjustments to its relationship with TSMC. As it proceeds toward HBM4E and HBM5 development, the company may pursue partial internalization of packaging to protect both profitability and technological independence. However, such efforts require significant time, capital, and skilled personnel—factors that could prolong the company’s exposure to market risks.

Customer Realignment and the Shifting Landscape

Amid these developments, customer sentiment is also evolving. Clients that once relied almost exclusively on SK Hynix are rethinking their supplier strategies. While SK Hynix’s integration with TSMC has delivered performance benefits, its single-vendor packaging model is increasingly seen as a liability in terms of risk exposure. As a result, Samsung and Micron are gaining attention for offering alternative packaging solutions that are not dependent on TSMC’s ecosystem.

Both companies are currently engaged in rigorous technical verification processes with major high-performance AI GPU manufacturers. The success of these partnerships will be a key determinant of whether Samsung and Micron can meaningfully challenge SK Hynix’s dominance. In an environment where performance demands, cost pressures, and supply chain resiliency all carry equal weight, client diversification has become a strategic imperative.

In this emerging multi-supplier landscape, market leadership can no longer rest on technical superiority alone. Price competitiveness, operational self-sufficiency, and long-term trust with clients will define the next chapter in the HBM saga. With Samsung poised for a major reentry, Micron pushing from below, and SK Hynix reevaluating its strategic footing, the global HBM race is no longer a one-horse sprint—it’s a full-fledged battle for memory supremacy in the AI age.

Preemptive Strike Approach Contrasts with Diplomatic Engagement
Possibility of Intensified Regional Power Struggle in the Middle East
Signs of CRINK Framework Collapse Amid Iran Crisis

The United States has carried out precision airstrikes using massive bombs and missiles on three underground nuclear facilities in Iran, opting for military force over diplomacy to curb nuclear development. This strike has significantly undermined Iran's standing in the Middle East, prompting neighboring countries to simultaneously readjust their diplomatic strategies, including distancing themselves from Iran. At the same time, concerns are emerging that a key pillar of the anti-American bloc, including Russia, China, and North Korea, may collapse. As a result, the international community is viewing this incident as a potential signal of a global order reshuffle.

U.S. Airstrike Pierces Bunkers, Disables Key Nuclear Facilities

On the 22nd (local time), Reuters and other foreign media reported that President Donald Trump announced on his social media platform that the United States had “successfully completed bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran,” stating, “We dropped the full payload on Fordow, a key target in Iran.” He added, “Congratulations to our great American warriors.”

The strike sites disclosed by President Trump include Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, three critical sites at the core of Iran’s nuclear program.

Most of these Iranian nuclear facilities are located dozens of meters underground within reinforced concrete bunkers. In response, the U.S. reportedly deployed at least six of its massive GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs, known as the only weapon capable of destroying deeply buried nuclear facilities without ground operations. In addition, the U.S. launched over 30 Tomahawk missiles, demonstrating both destructive force and precision deterrence in a single coordinated operation.

There is also evidence of pre-coordination with Israel during the airstrike. According to White House officials, President Trump had a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu immediately following the attack. Analysts suggest they likely discussed the rationale, operational specifics, and anticipated developments. Israel has long viewed Iran’s nuclear development as a direct security threat and has cooperated closely with the U.S. on monitoring efforts.

This U.S. strike marks a turning point, a shift from diplomatic engagement to military action, acknowledging the limitations of diplomacy in dealing with nuclear-aspiring states. For years, the international community employed negotiation, sanctions, and inspections to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but with little meaningful success. Instead, Iran took advantage of this window to reinforce underground facilities and increase its stockpile of highly enriched uranium, covertly inching closer to nuclear armament. From a diplomatic standpoint, the strike signals that existing measures were deemed insufficient to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Middle East Recalibrates Amid Power Vacuum

With Iran’s nuclear development abruptly halted, the political and military dynamics of the Middle East are being thrown into flux. Until now, Iran has been both the standard-bearer of Shia Islam and a cornerstone of the anti-American axis in the region. However, the crippling of its nuclear infrastructure, the backbone of its regional influence — has led to a rapid decline in its standing. The prevailing sentiment is that, without an immediate military response or retaliation from Iran, neighboring countries no longer perceive it as a fearsome power.

Among those closely watched in this new landscape is Saudi Arabia. Should Iran's influence wane, Saudi Arabia is expected to fill the resulting vacuum within the Shia bloc, and in doing so, expand not only its military role but also its political and economic clout. Saudi Arabia has recently shown a far more flexible posture, even publicly supporting renewed U.S.-Iran nuclear talks — a notable shift from the past.

This stance is seen as a strategic move to reduce national security uncertainty by de-escalating tensions with its geopolitical rival. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is carefully monitoring the scale and scope of U.S. involvement in the region, aiming to enhance its own strategic autonomy. Analysts are characterizing this as a form of “dual-track pragmatic diplomacy”, noting that Saudi Arabia seems to be positioning itself as either a new mediator or central player amid shifting geopolitical fault lines.

Beyond Saudi Arabia, several Gulf states with traditionally close ties to Iran are now distancing themselves. Countries such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman, once economically or religiously aligned with Iran, are now reevaluating their cooperative stances in the wake of the U.S.–Iran confrontation.

This strategic realignment is giving rise to speculation about the formation of a new “pro-U.S. belt” in the Middle East. Ultimately, Iran’s potential collapse is not simply the transfer of power from one actor to another but rather a redistribution of power among multiple stakeholders, including the U.S., vying for renewed influence in the region.

Preemptive Strikes on Nuclear-Armed Nations Now Seen as Plausible

The international community is closely watching the Iran crisis, with growing concern that it could fracture the emerging new Cold War framework known as "CRINK," an informal bloc comprising China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, aligned in opposition to the West. These countries have recently deepened cooperation across a range of areas, including security, energy, and military technology. Within this bloc, Iran has served as both a geostrategic linchpin and a symbolic anti-U.S. force, widely seen as a pillar in what has been called the “Axis of Evil.” However, the prevailing view is that Iran’s strategic value may diminish following the recent U.S. strike, potentially weakening the cohesion of the entire bloc.

Until now, the U.S. has relied mainly on negotiation, sanctions, and international surveillance to address these states. But with Iran becoming a target of direct military action, the pressure is now on other CRINK members to reassess their national security strategies.

China, for example, is heavily dependent on Middle Eastern energy, and prolonged instability in Iran could threaten China’s own economic stability. Russia, meanwhile, is already stretched thin by the protracted war in Ukraine, limiting its capacity to respond to simultaneous global security crises.

More significantly, the prospect of direct military action against other CRINK nations is beginning to look more plausible. Both North Korea and Russia, deeply engaged in nuclear development and full-scale warfare, respectively, are likely to interpret the Iran strike as a precision warning shot. Given that the U.S. appears to have moved beyond its long-standing doctrine of using military force only as a last resort, further military interventions may be perceived as not only possible but also strategically viable.

Observers also predict that without Iran, the CRINK bloc may lose its strategic depth and versatility. Iran had played a critical role in maintaining geopolitical balance within the group; without it, North Korea, China, and Russia may be forced to shoulder heavier diplomatic and military burdens.

This shift paves the way for the U.S. to implement a “divide and isolate” strategy more effectively, applying pressure to each nation individually rather than confronting a united front. This is why Iran’s downfall is being interpreted not simply as a power transition within the Middle East, but potentially as a spark that could ignite a broader restructuring of the global order. The erosion of CRINK’s strategic unity would give the U.S. and its allies new leverage, transforming what began as a regional strike into a global inflection point in the balance of power.