Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Amalya Dubrovsky, Karen Friar and Laura Bratton of Yahoo Finance report Dow jumps 800 points to record, S&P 500, Nasdaq soar as Powell's Jackson Hole finale fuels bets on September rate cut:US stocks soared on Friday as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell opened the door to a September rate cut during his highly anticipated speech at Jackson Hole.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 800 points or 1.9% to close at a fresh record, while the S&P 500 moved up about 1.5%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite climbed 1.9%. Friday's surge came on the heels of a downbeat week for markets, as tech stocks took a hit amid AI trade doubts.
His remarks shook up rate-cut bets, which had been waning after a weak monthly jobs report. Traders on Friday were pricing in about 91.5% odds of a September cut compared to 70% earlier in the morning and 85% a week ago.
Meanwhile, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields fell after Powell's remarks. The commentary also spurred a gain in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, with ethereum leading the crypto gains.
The White House watched Powell's speech closely, as President Trump has continued to push the Fed and Powell to lower rates. Trump opened a new front in his public pressure campaign on central bank independence by calling for the resignation of Fed governor Lisa Cook for alleged mortgage fraud. On Friday, Trump said he'll "fire" Cook if she doesn't resign, though legally, presidents cannot easily dismiss Fed governors.
On the earnings front, Zoom (ZM) stock popped Friday after reporting an AI boost, and Ross Stores (ROST) jumped as shoppers sought discounts amid tariffs. Intuit (INTU) and Workday (WDAY), meanwhile, slid.
Shares of Intel (INTC) jumped 5% after President Trump said the government will take a 10% stake in the ailing chip giant, calling it a "great deal."
Pia Sigh and Sarah Min of CNBC also report Dow surges more than 800 points to post record close as Powell speech fuels rally:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied to an all-time high Friday after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaled the central bank could begin easing monetary policy next month.
The Dow climbed 846.24 points, or 1.89%, reaching a fresh high and closing at a record level of 45,631.74. The S&P 500 rose 1.52% to end at 6,466.91. At its session high, the broad market index came within three points of its record. The Nasdaq Composite gained 1.88% and settled at 21,496.53.
Shares of megacap technology stocks soared on Powell’s comments. Nvidia added 1.7%, while Meta Platforms jumped more than 2%. Alphabet and Amazon each climbed more than 3%. Tesla shares jumped about 6%.
In a tepid speech at the central bank’s annual conclave in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Powell said that “the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” The Fed chief added that “the balance of risks appear to be shifting” between the central bank’s dual mandate of full employment and stable prices. He cited “sweeping changes” in tax, trade and immigration policies.
Expectations for a quarter-point rate cut in September surged to roughly 83% following the speed from about 75% earlier in the week, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
“The bar is extremely high now for the Fed to leave rates unchanged in less than a month,” said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Northlight Asset Management.
Friday’s performance came in contrast to much more downbeat market action this week. The major averages entered the session lower week to date due to pressure in megacap tech. The latest rally helped investors claw back most of the losses from earlier in the week.
For the week, 30-stock Dow advanced 1.5%, and the S&P 500 gained 0.3%, while the Nasdaq slipped 0.6%.
Jeff Cox of CNBC also reports Powell indicates conditions ‘may warrant’ interest rate cuts as Fed proceeds ‘carefully’:
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday gave a tepid indication of possible interest rate cuts ahead as he noted a high level of uncertainty that is making the job difficult for monetary policymakers.
In his much-anticipated speech at the Fed’s annual conclave in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the central bank leader in prepared remarks cited “sweeping changes” in tax, trade and immigration policies. The result is that “the balance of risks appear to be shifting” between the Fed’s twin goals of full employment and stable prices.
While he noted that the labor market remains in good shape and the economy has shown “resilience,” he said downside dangers are rising. At the same time, he said tariffs are causing risks that inflation could rise again — a stagflation scenario that the Fed needs to avoid.
With the Fed’s benchmark interest rate a full percentage point below where it was when Powell delivered his keynote a year ago, and the unemployment rate still low, conditions allow “us to proceed carefully as we consider changes to our policy stance,” Powell said.
“Nonetheless, with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” he added.
That was as close as he came during the speech to endorsing a rate cut that Wall Street widely believes is coming when the Federal Open Market Committee next meets Sept. 16-17.
However, the remarks were enough to send stocks soaring and Treasury yields tumbling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average showed a gain of more than 600 points following the public release of Powell’s speech while the policy-sensitive 2-year Treasury note saw a 0.08 percentage point fall to around 3.71%.
In addition to market expectations, President Donald Trump has demanded aggressive cuts from the Fed in scathing public attacks he has lobbed at Powell and his colleagues.
The Fed has held its benchmark borrowing rate in a range between 4.25%-4.5% since December. Policymakers have continued to cite the uncertain impact that tariffs will have on inflation as a reason for caution and believe that current economic conditions and the slightly restrictive policy stance allow for time to make further decisions.
Importance of Fed independenceWhile not addressing the White House demands for lower rates specifically, Powell did note the importance of Fed independence.
“FOMC members will make these decisions, based solely on their assessment of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks. We will never deviate from that approach,” he said.
The speech comes amid ongoing negotiations between the White House and its global trading partners, a situation often in flux and without clarity on where it will end. Recent indicators show consumer prices gradually pushing higher but wholesale costs up more rapidly.
From the Trump administration’s view, the tariffs will not cause lasting inflation, thus warranting rate cuts. Powell’s position in the speech was that a range of outcomes is possible, with a “reasonable base case” being that the tariff impacts will be “short lived — a one-time shift in the price level” that likely would not be cause for holding rates higher. However, he said nothing is certain at this point.
“It will continue to take time for tariff increases to work their way through supply chains and distribution networks,” Powell said. “Moreover, tariff rates continue to evolve, potentially prolonging the adjustment process.”
In addition to summarizing the current conditions and potential outcomes, the speech touched on the Fed’s five-year review of its policy framework. The review resulted in several notable changes from when the central bank last performed the task in 2020.
At that time, in the midst of the Covid pandemic, the Fed switched to a “flexible average inflation targeting” regime that effectively would allow inflation to run higher than the central bank’s 2% goal coming after a prolonged period of holding below that level. The upshot is that policymakers could be patient with slightly higher inflation if it meant insuring a more comprehensive labor market recovery.
However, shortly after adopting the strategy, inflation began to climb, ultimately hitting 40-year highs, while policymakers largely dismissed the rise as “transitory” and not needing rate hikes. Powell noted the damaging impacts from the inflation and the lessons learned.
“As it turned out, the idea of an intentional, moderate inflation overshoot had proved irrelevant. There was nothing intentional or moderate about the inflation that arrived a few months after we announced our 2020 changes to the consensus statement, as I acknowledged publicly in 2021,” Powell said. “The past five years have been a painful reminder of the hardship that high inflation imposes, especially on those least able to meet the higher costs of necessities.”
Also during the review, the Fed reaffirmed its commitment to its 2% inflation target. There have been critics on both sides of the issue, with some suggesting the rate is too high and can lead to a weaker dollar, while others seeing a need for the central bank to be flexible.
“We believe that our commitment to this target is a key factor helping keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored,” Powell said.
Alright, the week ended with a bang but it wasn't such a great week prior to today.
Powell confirmed the Fed will in all likelihood cut rates in September.
I said so last week when I covered top funds' activity in Q2, I expect a "one and done" rate cut in September.
The thing Fed officials are grappling with now is the lagged effects of tariffs on inflation.
Specifically, there were major inventory buildups as tariffs were announced but as those inventories wear off, producers will have to pass on the tariffs to consumers or eat them and suffer margin compression (ie. less profits).
But the US economy is definitely slowing, Powell is right to highlight the Fed's dual mandate and employment conditions certainly warrant a rate cut next month (fed funds rate is restrictive).
Alright, let me move straight to the stock market action this week in US markets.
As shown below, Energy, Real Estate, Financials and Materials were the top performing sectors this week (data from barchart):
And here are the top performing US large and mid cap stocks this week (data from barchart):
And here are the worst performing US large and mid cap stocks this week (data from barchart):
A lot of the high flyers like Palantir got clobbered this week.
Among the mid cap, shares of Viking Therapeutics (VKTX) were down more than 40% Tuesday after their phase 2 trial showed a high dropout rate relative to placebo control group.
I'm not going to bore you with the details but the data also showed extremely impressive weight loss results in just 12 weeks where larger competitors take much longer to show same results.
The trial design was too aggressive, the dropout rate was 28% vs 20% for placebo group (which is high) and it was in the highest dose subgroup.
In my opinion, this is THE biotech dip of the year to buy and there's no question in my mind that Pfizer is going to snap this company up (or some other big pharma).
I would invite you to read this post on X from Hataf Capital:
Viking Therapeutics Just Got a Reality Check
— Hataf Capital (@hataf_capital) August 19, 2025
I’ve followed Viking Therapeutics $VKTX long enough to know one thing: when Wall Street builds up a biotech story, reality almost always comes crashing down harder than expected. That’s exactly what happened this week when Viking… pic.twitter.com/ZQeAokx99Y
I also suggest you look at the top institutional holders of Viking shares here.
As I explained last week, I've been trading biotech long enough to know how Wall Street works, they manipulate these shares.
In my humble opinion, the dip in Viking Therapeutics shares this week was not warranted, the data was a lot better than what investors interpreted and this presents a great buying opportunity at these levels:
[Full disclosure: Viking is my biggest biotech position by far and I will ride it out no matter what.]
Alright, let me wrap it up there.
Below,Ryan Detrick, Carson Group chief market strategist, joins 'The Exchange' to discuss the market rally, Fed Chair Powell's speech and the bond market.
Also, Tom Lee, Fundstrat head of research and chief investment officer of Fundstrat Capital, joins CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss his reaction to Fed Chair Powell's speech at Jackson Hole, market expectations, and much more.
Third, Jeremy Siegel, WisdomTree chief economist and Wharton professor emeritus, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss the emphatic nature of the market response to Powell's Jackson Hole comments, the argument the Fed should cut rates and much more.
Fourth, Aswath Damodaran, NYU professor of finance, joins 'Power Lunch' to discuss if valuations of gotten out of control, if the markets overreacting to the latest Fed news and much more.
Fifth, Warren Pies, 3Fourteen Research co-founder, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss the market's reaction to the Powell's Jackson Hole comments, if there's downside risk to the macroeconomy and much more.
Lastly, The CNBC Investment committee debate the "Post-Powell Playbook" following Fed Chair Jerome Powell's speech in Jackson Hole.
Amalya Dubrovsky, Karen Friar and Laura Bratton of Yahoo Finance report Dow jumps 800 points to record, S&P 500, Nasdaq soar as Powell's Jackson Hole finale fuels bets on September rate cut:US stocks soared on Friday as Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell opened the door to a September rate cut during his highly anticipated speech at Jackson Hole.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 800 points or 1.9% to close at a fresh record, while the S&P 500 moved up about 1.5%, and the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite climbed 1.9%. Friday's surge came on the heels of a downbeat week for markets, as tech stocks took a hit amid AI trade doubts.
His remarks shook up rate-cut bets, which had been waning after a weak monthly jobs report. Traders on Friday were pricing in about 91.5% odds of a September cut compared to 70% earlier in the morning and 85% a week ago.
Meanwhile, the 10-year and 30-year Treasury yields fell after Powell's remarks. The commentary also spurred a gain in bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, with ethereum leading the crypto gains.
The White House watched Powell's speech closely, as President Trump has continued to push the Fed and Powell to lower rates. Trump opened a new front in his public pressure campaign on central bank independence by calling for the resignation of Fed governor Lisa Cook for alleged mortgage fraud. On Friday, Trump said he'll "fire" Cook if she doesn't resign, though legally, presidents cannot easily dismiss Fed governors.
On the earnings front, Zoom (ZM) stock popped Friday after reporting an AI boost, and Ross Stores (ROST) jumped as shoppers sought discounts amid tariffs. Intuit (INTU) and Workday (WDAY), meanwhile, slid.
Shares of Intel (INTC) jumped 5% after President Trump said the government will take a 10% stake in the ailing chip giant, calling it a "great deal."
Pia Sigh and Sarah Min of CNBC also report Dow surges more than 800 points to post record close as Powell speech fuels rally:
The Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied to an all-time high Friday after Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell signaled the central bank could begin easing monetary policy next month.
The Dow climbed 846.24 points, or 1.89%, reaching a fresh high and closing at a record level of 45,631.74. The S&P 500 rose 1.52% to end at 6,466.91. At its session high, the broad market index came within three points of its record. The Nasdaq Composite gained 1.88% and settled at 21,496.53.
Shares of megacap technology stocks soared on Powell’s comments. Nvidia added 1.7%, while Meta Platforms jumped more than 2%. Alphabet and Amazon each climbed more than 3%. Tesla shares jumped about 6%.
In a tepid speech at the central bank’s annual conclave in Jackson Hole, Wyo., Powell said that “the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” The Fed chief added that “the balance of risks appear to be shifting” between the central bank’s dual mandate of full employment and stable prices. He cited “sweeping changes” in tax, trade and immigration policies.
Expectations for a quarter-point rate cut in September surged to roughly 83% following the speed from about 75% earlier in the week, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool.
“The bar is extremely high now for the Fed to leave rates unchanged in less than a month,” said Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Northlight Asset Management.
Friday’s performance came in contrast to much more downbeat market action this week. The major averages entered the session lower week to date due to pressure in megacap tech. The latest rally helped investors claw back most of the losses from earlier in the week.
For the week, 30-stock Dow advanced 1.5%, and the S&P 500 gained 0.3%, while the Nasdaq slipped 0.6%.
Jeff Cox of CNBC also reports Powell indicates conditions ‘may warrant’ interest rate cuts as Fed proceeds ‘carefully’:
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday gave a tepid indication of possible interest rate cuts ahead as he noted a high level of uncertainty that is making the job difficult for monetary policymakers.
In his much-anticipated speech at the Fed’s annual conclave in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, the central bank leader in prepared remarks cited “sweeping changes” in tax, trade and immigration policies. The result is that “the balance of risks appear to be shifting” between the Fed’s twin goals of full employment and stable prices.
While he noted that the labor market remains in good shape and the economy has shown “resilience,” he said downside dangers are rising. At the same time, he said tariffs are causing risks that inflation could rise again — a stagflation scenario that the Fed needs to avoid.
With the Fed’s benchmark interest rate a full percentage point below where it was when Powell delivered his keynote a year ago, and the unemployment rate still low, conditions allow “us to proceed carefully as we consider changes to our policy stance,” Powell said.
“Nonetheless, with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance,” he added.
That was as close as he came during the speech to endorsing a rate cut that Wall Street widely believes is coming when the Federal Open Market Committee next meets Sept. 16-17.
However, the remarks were enough to send stocks soaring and Treasury yields tumbling. The Dow Jones Industrial Average showed a gain of more than 600 points following the public release of Powell’s speech while the policy-sensitive 2-year Treasury note saw a 0.08 percentage point fall to around 3.71%.
In addition to market expectations, President Donald Trump has demanded aggressive cuts from the Fed in scathing public attacks he has lobbed at Powell and his colleagues.
The Fed has held its benchmark borrowing rate in a range between 4.25%-4.5% since December. Policymakers have continued to cite the uncertain impact that tariffs will have on inflation as a reason for caution and believe that current economic conditions and the slightly restrictive policy stance allow for time to make further decisions.
Importance of Fed independenceWhile not addressing the White House demands for lower rates specifically, Powell did note the importance of Fed independence.
“FOMC members will make these decisions, based solely on their assessment of the data and its implications for the economic outlook and the balance of risks. We will never deviate from that approach,” he said.
The speech comes amid ongoing negotiations between the White House and its global trading partners, a situation often in flux and without clarity on where it will end. Recent indicators show consumer prices gradually pushing higher but wholesale costs up more rapidly.
From the Trump administration’s view, the tariffs will not cause lasting inflation, thus warranting rate cuts. Powell’s position in the speech was that a range of outcomes is possible, with a “reasonable base case” being that the tariff impacts will be “short lived — a one-time shift in the price level” that likely would not be cause for holding rates higher. However, he said nothing is certain at this point.
“It will continue to take time for tariff increases to work their way through supply chains and distribution networks,” Powell said. “Moreover, tariff rates continue to evolve, potentially prolonging the adjustment process.”
In addition to summarizing the current conditions and potential outcomes, the speech touched on the Fed’s five-year review of its policy framework. The review resulted in several notable changes from when the central bank last performed the task in 2020.
At that time, in the midst of the Covid pandemic, the Fed switched to a “flexible average inflation targeting” regime that effectively would allow inflation to run higher than the central bank’s 2% goal coming after a prolonged period of holding below that level. The upshot is that policymakers could be patient with slightly higher inflation if it meant insuring a more comprehensive labor market recovery.
However, shortly after adopting the strategy, inflation began to climb, ultimately hitting 40-year highs, while policymakers largely dismissed the rise as “transitory” and not needing rate hikes. Powell noted the damaging impacts from the inflation and the lessons learned.
“As it turned out, the idea of an intentional, moderate inflation overshoot had proved irrelevant. There was nothing intentional or moderate about the inflation that arrived a few months after we announced our 2020 changes to the consensus statement, as I acknowledged publicly in 2021,” Powell said. “The past five years have been a painful reminder of the hardship that high inflation imposes, especially on those least able to meet the higher costs of necessities.”
Also during the review, the Fed reaffirmed its commitment to its 2% inflation target. There have been critics on both sides of the issue, with some suggesting the rate is too high and can lead to a weaker dollar, while others seeing a need for the central bank to be flexible.
“We believe that our commitment to this target is a key factor helping keep longer-term inflation expectations well anchored,” Powell said.
Alright, the week ended with a bang but it wasn't such a great week prior to today.
Powell confirmed the Fed will in all likelihood cut rates in September.
I said so last week when I covered top funds' activity in Q2, I expect a "one and done" rate cut in September.
The thing Fed officials are grappling with now is the lagged effects of tariffs on inflation.
Specifically, there were major inventory buildups as tariffs were announced but as those inventories wear off, producers will have to pass on the tariffs to consumers or eat them and suffer margin compression (ie. less profits).
But the US economy is definitely slowing, Powell is right to highlight the Fed's dual mandate and employment conditions certainly warrant a rate cut next month (fed funds rate is restrictive).
Alright, let me move straight to the stock market action this week in US markets.
As shown below, Energy, Real Estate, Financials and Materials were the top performing sectors this week (data from barchart):
And here are the top performing US large and mid cap stocks this week (data from barchart):
And here are the worst performing US large and mid cap stocks this week (data from barchart):
A lot of the high flyers like Palantir got clobbered this week.
Among the mid cap, shares of Viking Therapeutics (VKTX) were down more than 40% Tuesday after their phase 2 trial showed a high dropout rate relative to placebo control group.
I'm not going to bore you with the details but the data also showed extremely impressive weight loss results in just 12 weeks where larger competitors take much longer to show same results.
The trial design was too aggressive, the dropout rate was 28% vs 20% for placebo group (which is high) and it was in the highest dose subgroup.
In my opinion, this is THE biotech dip of the year to buy and there's no question in my mind that Pfizer is going to snap this company up (or some other big pharma).
I would invite you to read this post on X from Hataf Capital:
Viking Therapeutics Just Got a Reality Check
— Hataf Capital (@hataf_capital) August 19, 2025
I’ve followed Viking Therapeutics $VKTX long enough to know one thing: when Wall Street builds up a biotech story, reality almost always comes crashing down harder than expected. That’s exactly what happened this week when Viking… pic.twitter.com/ZQeAokx99Y
I also suggest you look at the top institutional holders of Viking shares here.
As I explained last week, I've been trading biotech long enough to know how Wall Street works, they manipulate these shares.
In my humble opinion, the dip in Viking Therapeutics shares this week was not warranted, the data was a lot better than what investors interpreted and this presents a great buying opportunity at these levels:
[Full disclosure: Viking is my biggest biotech position by far and I will ride it out no matter what.]
Alright, let me wrap it up there.
Below,Ryan Detrick, Carson Group chief market strategist, joins 'The Exchange' to discuss the market rally, Fed Chair Powell's speech and the bond market.
Also, Tom Lee, Fundstrat head of research and chief investment officer of Fundstrat Capital, joins CNBC's 'Squawk on the Street' to discuss his reaction to Fed Chair Powell's speech at Jackson Hole, market expectations, and much more.
Third, Jeremy Siegel, WisdomTree chief economist and Wharton professor emeritus, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss the emphatic nature of the market response to Powell's Jackson Hole comments, the argument the Fed should cut rates and much more.
Fourth, Aswath Damodaran, NYU professor of finance, joins 'Power Lunch' to discuss if valuations of gotten out of control, if the markets overreacting to the latest Fed news and much more.
Fifth, Warren Pies, 3Fourteen Research co-founder, joins 'Closing Bell' to discuss the market's reaction to the Powell's Jackson Hole comments, if there's downside risk to the macroeconomy and much more.
Lastly, The CNBC Investment committee debate the "Post-Powell Playbook" following Fed Chair Jerome Powell's speech in Jackson Hole.
Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party stripped the party's endorsement of radical leftist Minnesota state Sen. Omar Fateh in the Minneapolis mayoral race over "brazen cheating." The emerging election cheating scandal hilariously occurred amongst Democrats. Awkwardly, this comes from the same party of woke leftists that insists U.S. elections are the "safest in the world" and free from manipulation. Clearly, this corrupt party that serves progressive elites - not the working class - wants a do-over in this local election.
BREAKING: Due to vote irregularities at the DFL convention, DFL is revoking its Omar Fateh endorsement pic.twitter.com/8VHrhvonpV
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) August 21, 2025
On Thursday, Minnesota DFL chair Richard Carlbom wrote in a statement, "After a thoughtful and transparent review of the challenges, the Constitution, Bylaws & Rules Committee found substantial failures in the Minneapolis Convention's voting process on July 19, including an acknowledgement that a mayoral candidate was errantly eliminated from contention."
Carlbom added, "Now it's time to turn our focus to unity and our common goal: electing DFL leaders focused on making life more affordable for Minnesotans and holding Republicans accountable for the chaos and confusion they've unleashed on Minnesotans."
A series of challenges were submitted to the Minnesota DFL after last month's convention, citing serious issues with the electronic voting system and raising questions about election integrity in Fateh's endorsement over incumbent Jacob Frey. The Minneapolis DFL also recognized it had erroneously eliminated DeWayne Davis after the first round of voting due to 176 undercounted votes.
Mayor Jacob Frey spokesperson says endorsement of Fateh was "brazen cheating." https://t.co/eUMU92ZyM0 pic.twitter.com/aHF8U1GYVb
— Anthony Gockowski (@AntGockowski) August 21, 2025
Jonathan Turley chimed in on X about Fateh's short-lived endorsement,
"Omar Fateh is accusing fellow democrats of being effectively election deniers who are claiming election machine voting was flawed. Sounds familiar. As with Hogg after the DNC election, the party is planning a do-over."
Omar Fateh is accusing fellow democrats of being effectively election deniers who are claiming election machine voting was flawed. Sounds familiar. As with Hogg after the DNC election, the party is planning a do-over. https://t.co/cLYwhtzrfF
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 22, 2025
Turley couldn't be more right… Fateh's campaign claimed that "establishment Democrats, including many Frey supporters," coordinated the effort to nuke his endorsement.
Meanwhile, Fateh's brother-in-law...
Since Omar Fateh is now accused of cheating, here’s a reminder:
— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 21, 2025
His brother-in-law, Muse Mohamed was convicted of lying to a grand jury about illegally handling absentee ballots tied to ballot harvesting.
Investigators later confirmed he did, in fact, handle those ballots. pic.twitter.com/iKERUDV1Kz
If Democrats are willing to cheat in local elections, especially against themselves, then how about revisiting the 2020 presidential election?
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 14:25The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia has released the coincident indexes for the 50 states for July 2025. Over the past three months, the indexes increased in 41 states, decreased in eight states, and remained stable in one, for a three-month diffusion index of 66. Additionally, in the past month, the indexes increased in 38 states, decreased in five states, and remained stable in seven, for a one-month diffusion index of 66. For comparison purposes, the Philadelphia Fed has also developed a similar coincident index for the entire United States. The Philadelphia Fed’s U.S. index increased 0.5 percent over the past three months and 0.1 percent in July.Note: These are coincident indexes constructed from state employment data. An explanation from the Philly Fed:
emphasis added
The coincident indexes combine four state-level indicators to summarize current economic conditions in a single statistic. The four state-level variables in each coincident index are nonfarm payroll employment, average hours worked in manufacturing by production workers, the unemployment rate, and wage and salary disbursements deflated by the consumer price index (U.S. city average). The trend for each state’s index is set to the trend of its gross domestic product (GDP), so long-term growth in the state’s index matches long-term growth in its GDP.
Click on map for larger image.
And here is a graph is of the number of states with one month increasing activity according to the Philly Fed. Goldman analysts led by George Tong returned to Silicon Valley for their second AI field trip, meeting with AI startups, public companies, VCs, and professors from Stanford, UCSF, and UC Berkeley to assess whether corporate America is truly embracing generative AI. The visit comes as record AI capex fuels record hyperscale data center buildouts nationwide, while investors search for clues on whether the adoption phase will materialize: a shift beyond infrastructure into the application layer.
"Insights indicate AI labs are expanding from the infrastructure layer to the application layer and LLM costs are sharply declining though capex may continue to rise as Gen AI usage and adoption grows," Tong wrote in a note to clients on Friday.
He continued: "Academic research on LLM technologies could further bring down costs. While software development costs are falling and increasing competitive and pricing risks, moats in application AI and SaaS companies include broader user distribution, engagement with power users to drive reinforcement learning from feedback loops, integration into workflows and leveraging proprietary data."
Tong's discussions with Silicon Valley business and academic leaders point to an acceleration in generative AI adoption starting in 2026.
Here's a summary of the findings:
Shift from infrastructure to applications: AI innovation is moving beyond chips and cloud (Nvidia, GPUs, etc.) toward actual end-user applications and vertical software solutions.
LLM costs are sliding: Training and using large language models is getting cheaper, though capex will still rise as usage expands. Academia is helping reduce costs: University research may accelerate efficiency gains in AI models.
Software development deflation: Building with AI is cheaper and faster, but that means higher competition and pricing pressure for software companies.
Tong said the conversations in Silicon Valley point to "positive implications" for S&P Global, Moody's, Iron Mountain, Verisk Analytics, and Thomson Reuters. He noted that his team has initiated coverage on McGraw-Hill with a "Buy" rating and a $27 12-month price target based on a "digital transformation" in the education space.
The analyst provided clients with a "chart of the week" that showed how McGraw-Hill is leveraging AI to improve product efficacy and drive growth.
Is the AI rate adoption (read here) enough to justify this record capex spending (more details here) by hyperscalers?
Let's hope so, or AI stocks face a hefty correction.
More in the full Goldman note available to pro subs.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:40Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A federal judge on Thursday found that Alina Habba, a former attorney to President Donald Trump, has been unlawfully serving as the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey since July.
Alina Habba speaks after being sworn in as interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey, in the Oval Office of the White House on March 28, 2025. Pool via AP
“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not,” Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania wrote in a 77-page opinion.
“And because she is not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity, she must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases,” Brann said.
Trump appointed Habba in March as interim U.S. attorney, a role limited to 120 days unless extended by a vote of the district’s judges. When Habba’s term expired in July, the judges opted to replace her with her second-in-command, Desiree Grace. The Justice Department responded by firing Grace and reinstalling Habba, this time designating her as “Special Attorney to the Attorney General.”
By law, interim U.S. attorneys may serve only 120 days before district judges either appoint a temporary successor or the Senate confirms the administration’s nominee. If neither happens, the office’s first assistant may temporarily assume the role. In New Jersey, that would have been Grace, but her removal cleared the way for Habba, now the most senior official in the office, to stay in charge.
The Trump administration took this unusual maneuver as Democrats continue to block the president’s U.S. attorney nominees from getting a full Senate vote. While the administration has extended several interim appointments by sidestepping Senate confirmation and judicial appointment, Habba’s is so far the only one to face a formal legal challenge.
The challenge was brought by three criminal defendants in New Jersey, who argued that Habba lacked legal authority to prosecute them after her 120-day interim appointment ended in July. They asked the court to throw out their indictments, claiming that any case filed under her leadership was invalid.
Brann agreed that Habba had no legal authority but declined to dismiss those charges. Instead, he ruled that anyone who prosecutes them “under the supervision or authority of Ms. Habba” would be subject to disqualification, and that any prosecutorial actions she has made since July 1 should be declared voided.
The case was reassigned to Brann after Michael A. Chagares, chief judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, ordered it moved out of the District of New Jersey. In a brief, one-sentence directive, Chagares said the trial was being transferred to the Middle District of Pennsylvania “in the public interest,” offering no further explanation.
Anticipating an appeal, Brann stayed his ruling and allowed Habba to remain in place while higher courts review the matter.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. It has argued that the president has broad discretion to decide who leads U.S. attorney offices.
“The President has made clear that he will not permit anyone other than Ms. Habba to fill the current vacancy in the office of the United States Attorney on a temporary basis. That is his prerogative; this Court cannot second-guess it,” the department wrote in a court filing.
Shortly after Habba took office, she opened an investigation into New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over the state’s immigration policies. No charges have been filed so far in connection with the inquiry.
In May, her office charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) with assaulting federal officers while McIver and two other lawmakers were conducting a “congressional oversight inspection” at an immigration detention center in Newark. Prosecutors allege that McIver tried to block the arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who had been barred by federal agents from joining the delegation.
McIver has denied wrongdoing and is seeking dismissal of the case.
Habba’s office also charged Baraka with trespassing, but later dropped the case.
Habba’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:20For the second time in less than two weeks, Russian oil shipments to Hungary have been suspended following yet another Ukrainian strike on the Druzhba pipeline.
Hungary's Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto announced it Friday, with Slovak officials also confirming. "This is yet another blow to our energy security - another effort to pull us into the war," Szijjarto stated on social media. It occurred near the Russia-Belarus border.
Source: EPA
Prior strikes on the Druzhba pipeline network took place on August 13 and August 18, with the last attack having crippled a vital transformer station, which had previously but briefly halted oil flows.
It is certainly nothing new that Ukraine's intelligence and military is targeting Russian energy infrastructure; however, what is new is President Trump's surprise reaction:
U.S. President Donald Trump said he got “very angry” after Ukraine damaged a Russian oil pipeline that supplies his friend Viktor Orbán, Hungary's prime minister.
Trump responded to a note from Orbán, who complained about a Ukrainian drone attack overnight on Aug. 13 hitting the Druzhba oil pipeline, which supplies Hungary, Slovakia and other countries in Central Europe with Russian oil through Ukrainian territory.
“Viktor — I do not like hearing this. I am very angry about it. Tell Slovakia,” Trump wrote according to a letter published online by Orbán's ruling Fidesz party. “You are my great friend,” the U.S. president added.
Below is the letter as released by Hungarian state media and the prime minister's office:
The incident that Trump was responding to was an earlier August attack, which occurred "just before the historic meeting between President Trump and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin in Alaska" - as Orban wrote.
"Hungary supports Ukraine with electricity and petrol, in return they bomb pipeline that supply us. Very unfriendly move," Orban stated.
Trump might also condemn this newest Friday attack if he's asked about it by reporters - but there remains something deeply contradictory about the White House stance. Trump just this week in a Truth Social post seemed to say that Ukraine must go on the offensive against Russia if it hopes to achieve a peace deal which benefits Kiev. As the WSJ noted:
By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.
“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”
His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.
Trump seems to be signaling that he wants to see Ukraine go on the offensive, but refrain from hitting energy sites. This is at least consistent with Trump's wanting a 'freeze' on attacks targeting energy infrastructure, which had been enacted for a brief period months ago.
Hungary continues to rely heavily on Russian oil, even after most European nations have imposed sanctions and sought alternative sources.
Polish-Hungarian relations in three tweets. pic.twitter.com/ji8czGaGw9
— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) August 22, 2025
Budapest's Russian energy supply is primarily delivered through the Druzhba pipeline, which passes through Belarus and Ukraine before reaching Hungary and Slovakia.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 13:00Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a lawsuit against the operators of LA Fitness and other gyms over allegations that they make it “exceedingly difficult” for subscribers to cancel recurring gym memberships and related services, according to a statement issued by the agency on Aug. 20.
An LA Fitness location, in this file photo. Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
The FTC lawsuit was filed on Aug. 20 against Fitness International LLC and Fitness & Sports Clubs LLC, which together own and operate LA Fitness and other gym chains, including Esporta Fitness, City Sports Club, and Club Studio, which have more than 600 locations and more than 3.7 million members nationwide.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for violating the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA) and seeks monetary relief for consumers harmed by the alleged practices.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants use “difficult” cancellation procedures that are found to be time-consuming and inadequately disclosed to consumers when they join up. Members who wish to cancel must generate a cancellation form online and print it. Then, they need to submit the printed forms to the gym during limited hours.
The forms must be submitted to the “specific manager at the location who is authorized to process the forms,” and not just any gym employee, the complaint states. Another way to cancel is by certified or registered mail, which necessitates a visit to the post office.
The cancellation processes are “opaque, complicated, and demanding,” the FTC stated, adding that many consumers who have gone through the procedures “nevertheless find that they continue to be billed for their memberships.”
According to the agency, the gym operators have retained the system despite receiving tens of thousands of reports from consumers complaining about the cancellation procedures.
The companies offer gym memberships in the range of $30 to $299 per month, depending on additional services such as towel service or child care. The costs incurred by the consumer, while joining, include the first and last month’s dues, monthly recurring dues, and annual fees, the FTC stated.
“The FTC’s complaint describes a scenario that too many Americans have experienced—a gym membership that seems impossible to cancel,” said Christopher Mufarrige, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The commission voted 3–0 to authorize the filing of the complaint.
According to ROSCA, an online seller must disclose all material terms before attempting to charge any consumer’s credit card, debit card, or bank account, and provide simple mechanisms to stop recurring charges. The FTC is the enforcer of this Act.
Gym ResponseFitness International President Jill Hill expressed disappointment with the FTC complaint in a company statement published on Aug. 20.
“The allegations are without merit, and the statute the FTC relies upon—the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act (ROSCA), enacted almost 15 years ago—was designed to address only online retail transactions, does not require any specific method of cancellation, and has never before been applied to the health club industry. We remain confident that we will prevail in court,” Hill said.
She said most of the gym memberships were done at physical locations and not online. The companies have “launched an online cancellation option for all members, regardless of how they originally signed up,” Hill said.
“With just a few clicks, members may cancel online—a step we voluntarily implemented well ahead of regulatory deadlines,” she said.
The companies work to comply with all health club state laws regarding membership cancellations, according to Hill.
The FTC had announced a “Click-to-Cancel” rule in 2024 under the Biden administration. The rule, which went into effect earlier this year, was postponed by the Trump administration to give businesses additional time to comply.
The rule mandates that canceling a subscription must be as simple as signing up.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:40We boosted our Q3 GDP tracking estimate by 0.1pp to +1.5% (quarter-over-quarter annualized). Our Q3 domestic final sales estimate stands at +0.3%. We left our past-quarter GDP tracking estimate unchanged at +3.1%. [August 21st estimate]And from the Atlanta Fed: GDPNow
The GDPNow model estimate for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the third quarter of 2025 is 2.3 percent on August 19, down from 2.5 percent on August 15. After this morning’s housing starts release from the US Census Bureau, the nowcast of third-quarter real residential investment growth decreased from 1.1 percent to -5.9 percent. [August 19th estimate]
Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is throwing his support behind Alpha School, a private education network that blends artificial intelligence with an unconventional approach to learning, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The school, which already operates in Texas, Florida, and California, plans to open a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade campus in Manhattan this fall.
Alpha’s model is unusual: students complete math, reading, and other fundamentals in just two hours a day using AI-driven software. The rest of the schedule is filled with activities meant to build confidence and practical skills, such as bike rides or drone workshops.
“We do not let anything—political, social issues—come in the way,” said co-founder MacKenzie Price. “We stay very much out of that.”
Price, who has become a prominent critic of traditional education on social media, launched Alpha more than a decade ago. The school employs “guides” rather than certified teachers and charges families between $40,000 and $65,000 annually, depending on location.
Ackman, best known for running the $20 billion firm Pershing Square, has recently taken on the role of informal booster for Alpha. He first heard about the school earlier this year and was impressed by its reliance on technology and its decision to avoid hot-button debates around diversity, equity, and inclusion. He has since hosted parents at Alpha’s Austin campus and is scheduled to appear on a panel about education at his Hamptons home, alongside Price, Alpha principal Joe Liemandt, and financier Michael Milken.
The Journal writes that though not an investor, Ackman’s enthusiasm has elevated the school’s profile. A person close to Alpha described him as a “de facto ambassador.” On social media, he praised its approach in what some observers saw as a glowing endorsement.
Ackman’s embrace of Alpha fits into his broader criticism of higher education, especially his attacks on Harvard University’s handling of campus antisemitism and its embrace of DEI initiatives. His online campaign against Harvard leadership last year helped push the school’s president to resign.
Alpha plans to expand quickly, with new schools opening in Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, California, and Puerto Rico. Price has said she may eventually raise outside investment to fund growth, but for now Ackman’s backing is giving the school an influential foothold in New York’s crowded private-education market.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:05Hedge fund manager Bill Ackman is throwing his support behind Alpha School, a private education network that blends artificial intelligence with an unconventional approach to learning, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The school, which already operates in Texas, Florida, and California, plans to open a kindergarten-through-eighth-grade campus in Manhattan this fall.
Alpha’s model is unusual: students complete math, reading, and other fundamentals in just two hours a day using AI-driven software. The rest of the schedule is filled with activities meant to build confidence and practical skills, such as bike rides or drone workshops.
“We do not let anything—political, social issues—come in the way,” said co-founder MacKenzie Price. “We stay very much out of that.”
Price, who has become a prominent critic of traditional education on social media, launched Alpha more than a decade ago. The school employs “guides” rather than certified teachers and charges families between $40,000 and $65,000 annually, depending on location.
Ackman, best known for running the $20 billion firm Pershing Square, has recently taken on the role of informal booster for Alpha. He first heard about the school earlier this year and was impressed by its reliance on technology and its decision to avoid hot-button debates around diversity, equity, and inclusion. He has since hosted parents at Alpha’s Austin campus and is scheduled to appear on a panel about education at his Hamptons home, alongside Price, Alpha principal Joe Liemandt, and financier Michael Milken.
The Journal writes that though not an investor, Ackman’s enthusiasm has elevated the school’s profile. A person close to Alpha described him as a “de facto ambassador.” On social media, he praised its approach in what some observers saw as a glowing endorsement.
Ackman’s embrace of Alpha fits into his broader criticism of higher education, especially his attacks on Harvard University’s handling of campus antisemitism and its embrace of DEI initiatives. His online campaign against Harvard leadership last year helped push the school’s president to resign.
Alpha plans to expand quickly, with new schools opening in Arizona, North Carolina, Virginia, California, and Puerto Rico. Price has said she may eventually raise outside investment to fund growth, but for now Ackman’s backing is giving the school an influential foothold in New York’s crowded private-education market.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 12:05By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com
The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.
Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).
Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.
Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.
Winners and losers? Near-term winners include U.S. tower fabricators and any blade/drivetrain maker who can credibly and quickly localize. Losers are developers stuck with fixed-price PPAs and engineering firms with thin contingencies. Grid bottlenecks and permitting are still the bigger choke points, but tariffs aren’t a rounding error anymore—they’re line-item pain.
The probe suggests that “buy more domestic, pay more near-term” is policy, not rhetoric. Expect delayed Commercial Operation Dates (CODs—the day projects actually flip the switch and start earning revenue), tougher PPA negotiations, and a faster push to U.S. content. Wind still looks okay economically on paper, just with a higher metal cost and a thinner margin for error.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:45By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com
The Commerce Department just opened a Section 232 “national security” probe into imported wind turbines and parts—quietly on Aug. 13, publicly today. That matters because 232 isn’t a press release; it’s a legal on-ramp to more tariffs on top of the new 50% duty already applied to the steel and aluminum content in turbines and components.
Here’s the operational read: the U.S. wind build is heavily import-dependent for blades, drivetrains, and electrical systems. In 2023, the U.S. brought in about $1.7B of wind equipment, with roughly 41% from Mexico, Canada, and China. If you tax the metal inside the machine—and potentially layer more 232 duties later—you squeeze project profit margins, renegotiate Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs—long-term contracts to sell the power), or delay FIDs. None of those outcomes lowers your Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE—think of it as the average lifetime price per unit of electricity once you add up all the costs).
Wood Mackenzie pegs the tariff bite at +7% for turbine costs (+5% total project costs) under the earlier tariff proposals; in a universal 25% tariff scenario, turbine costs could rise ~10% and LCOE up ~7%. And that was before Commerce slapped a 50% surcharge on the steel/aluminum content—so the floor just moved higher. Expect original equipment manufacturers to reroute supply chains, localize sub-assemblies, and raise prices anyway. Vestas has already said the quiet part out loud: these costs flow straight through to electricity prices.
Don’t confuse this with an offshore-only story. Onshore wind is where the bulk of U.S. volume lives, and it’s far more sensitive to every $/kW swing, gearbox delivery delay, and tower steel price jump. Section 232 is also being deployed against other “critical” imports (planes, chips, pharma), so wind isn’t a one-off carve-out—it’s part of a broader, durable trade posture that project finance now has to underwrite.
Winners and losers? Near-term winners include U.S. tower fabricators and any blade/drivetrain maker who can credibly and quickly localize. Losers are developers stuck with fixed-price PPAs and engineering firms with thin contingencies. Grid bottlenecks and permitting are still the bigger choke points, but tariffs aren’t a rounding error anymore—they’re line-item pain.
The probe suggests that “buy more domestic, pay more near-term” is policy, not rhetoric. Expect delayed Commercial Operation Dates (CODs—the day projects actually flip the switch and start earning revenue), tougher PPA negotiations, and a faster push to U.S. content. Wind still looks okay economically on paper, just with a higher metal cost and a thinner margin for error.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:45The post MAGA 2.0: Making China Great Again appeared first on CEPR.
Now, merely a week out from when Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the White House's admirable peace efforts seem to be unraveling and even hopelessly stalled. Many independent-minded analysts had from the very start said that this conflict will ultimately be settled on the battlefield. The Wall Street Journal too seems to be coming around to this view:
On Monday, President Trump boasted about quickly brokering peace to end the bloody Ukraine conflict. By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.
“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”
His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.
Indeed this is another example of the West trying to have its cake and eat it too, as Trump strongly hints that Ukraine must take the offensive while simultaneously lamenting that Putin and Zelensky are not getting together in a hoped-for summit.
Trump is essentially saying Ukraine cannot win the war unless it launches attacks on Russia.
Associated Press/CBC
"It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country," Trump had explained further in his Truth Social statement.
The WSJ in its analysis then turns to one of the big factors which is sure to stymie talks from Moscow's point of view: security guarantees for Ukraine:
U.S. and European officials are still negotiating the makeup of a peacekeeping force that would aim to deter future Russian attacks against Ukraine if a peace deal was reached. Even that idea was quickly rebuffed by the Kremlin and raised questions about Trump’s willingness to commit to a major role for the U.S. military.
With much of his plans still unrealized, Trump is confronted with the uncertainties that have dogged him for the past seven months: How willing is he to pressure Putin, and how far is he willing to go in backing Zelensky?
As we highlighted before, the 'logic' of this is contradictory and will lead nowhere. Why would Russia agree to end its military operations if in the end NATO-like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?...to quote Moon of Alabama.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the US and its Western allies on Thursday that President Putin has "repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly" by experts and ministers.
To translate, Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal. This has been reiterated in a Friday foreign ministry statement:
LAVROV: PUTIN-ZELENSKY MEETING NOT PLANNED YET — KREMLIN SAYS SUMMIT POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER AGENDA IS AGREED
THREAD: Europe struggles to understand Trump because Trump is a political wrestler. And wrestling is foreign to Europe. Let me explain. 1/12 pic.twitter.com/qeKYOCRP5r
— Volodymyr Demchenko (@brokenpixelua) August 21, 2025
And as RT outlines further, "Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022." This means there must be the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, the formal ceding of territories, and that the Russian neighbor cease being militarized by NATO.
Reuters also describes, "Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters."
And per Bloomberg: "A full ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine remains unlikely this year, with even the prospect of a partial truce fading, according to JPMorgan emerging market and policy strategists."
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:25Now, merely a week out from when Presidents Trump and Putin met in Alaska, the White House's admirable peace efforts seem to be unraveling and even hopelessly stalled. Many independent-minded analysts had from the very start said that this conflict will ultimately be settled on the battlefield. The Wall Street Journal too seems to be coming around to this view:
On Monday, President Trump boasted about quickly brokering peace to end the bloody Ukraine conflict. By Thursday, he was saying that Kyiv had no chance of winning the war without new attacks on Russia.
“It’s like a great team in sports that has a fantastic defense, but is not allowed to play offense,” Trump posted on social media. “Interesting times ahead!!!”
His turnaround underscored the fading optimism about Trump’s latest push to end the war.
Indeed this is another example of the West trying to have its cake and eat it too, as Trump strongly hints that Ukraine must take the offensive while simultaneously lamenting that Putin and Zelensky are not getting together in a hoped-for summit.
Trump is essentially saying Ukraine cannot win the war unless it launches attacks on Russia.
Associated Press/CBC
"It is very hard, if not impossible, to win a war without attacking an invaders country," Trump had explained further in his Truth Social statement.
The WSJ in its analysis then turns to one of the big factors which is sure to stymie talks from Moscow's point of view: security guarantees for Ukraine:
U.S. and European officials are still negotiating the makeup of a peacekeeping force that would aim to deter future Russian attacks against Ukraine if a peace deal was reached. Even that idea was quickly rebuffed by the Kremlin and raised questions about Trump’s willingness to commit to a major role for the U.S. military.
With much of his plans still unrealized, Trump is confronted with the uncertainties that have dogged him for the past seven months: How willing is he to pressure Putin, and how far is he willing to go in backing Zelensky?
As we highlighted before, the 'logic' of this is contradictory and will lead nowhere. Why would Russia agree to end its military operations if in the end NATO-like 'security guarantees' are to be given to Ukraine as a reward?...to quote Moon of Alabama.
Meanwhile, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reminded the US and its Western allies on Thursday that President Putin has "repeatedly said that he is ready to meet, including with Zelensky, if there is understanding that all issues that require consideration at the highest level have been worked out thoroughly" by experts and ministers.
To translate, Putin will only sit down with Zelensky if they are already at the goal line of having worked out a permanent peace deal. This has been reiterated in a Friday foreign ministry statement:
LAVROV: PUTIN-ZELENSKY MEETING NOT PLANNED YET — KREMLIN SAYS SUMMIT POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER AGENDA IS AGREED
THREAD: Europe struggles to understand Trump because Trump is a political wrestler. And wrestling is foreign to Europe. Let me explain. 1/12 pic.twitter.com/qeKYOCRP5r
— Volodymyr Demchenko (@brokenpixelua) August 21, 2025
And as RT outlines further, "Moscow maintains that any lasting settlement must eliminate the root causes of the conflict, address Russia’s security concerns, and recognize current territorial realities, including the status of Crimea and the four former Ukrainian regions that voted to join Russia in 2022." This means there must be the permanent neutrality of Ukraine, the formal ceding of territories, and that the Russian neighbor cease being militarized by NATO.
Reuters also describes, "Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters."
And per Bloomberg: "A full ceasefire or peace agreement in Ukraine remains unlikely this year, with even the prospect of a partial truce fading, according to JPMorgan emerging market and policy strategists."
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:25By Matthew Vadum of Epoch Times,
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on Aug. 21 to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The new ruling clears the way for the funding reductions while litigation over the grants continues in the lower courts.
The justices filed five separate opinions explaining their votes.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to allow the grants to be cut.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to deny the government’s request to rescind the funding.
The high court said it acted because the federal government faces the possibility that the grant monies, once paid out, may not be recovered.
Moreover, “the plaintiffs do not state that they will repay grant money if the Government ultimately prevails.”
The case is known as National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.
The Department of Justice filed an emergency application with the nation’s highest court late last month, asking the justices to block a ruling by Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young, who found the cancellation was unlawful and ordered the government to restore the funding.
NIH began taking steps in February to end the grants that conflict with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.
The NIH is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research.
The emergency application stemmed from two lawsuits challenging the cuts to grants involving DEI, “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other issues.
The American Public Health Association described the cuts as an “ongoing ideological purge” of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI, or “other vague, now-forbidden language.” A coalition of 16 attorneys general, largely Democrats, alleged their public research institutions are facing harm because of the funding delays and cuts.
The district court directed the NIH “to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration’s priorities,” the department said in its filing.
“Following the change in Administration, the NIH identified, explained, and pursued new funding priorities. That is democracy at work, not, as the district court thought, proof of inappropriate ‘partisan[ship]’—let alone a permissible basis for setting agency action aside.”
In his written opinion, Gorsuch said the district court’s ruling upholding the grants conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California in April that let the Trump administration withdraw education-related grants.
“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch said.
Unless we want anarchy to take over the federal judicial system, “a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be,” Gorsuch said, quoting a prior Supreme Court ruling.
In his dissenting opinion, Roberts said the district court ruling was justified.
“This relief—which has prospective and generally applicable implications beyond the reinstatement of specific grants—falls well within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction under the [federal] Administrative Procedure Act.”
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the dissent in part.
In her dissenting opinion, Jackson said the high court’s new ruling is “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” a reference to a fictional game featured in the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes.”
“Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she said.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:05By Matthew Vadum of Epoch Times,
The Supreme Court voted 5–4 on Aug. 21 to allow the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants linked to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The new ruling clears the way for the funding reductions while litigation over the grants continues in the lower courts.
The justices filed five separate opinions explaining their votes.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett voted to allow the grants to be cut.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to deny the government’s request to rescind the funding.
The high court said it acted because the federal government faces the possibility that the grant monies, once paid out, may not be recovered.
Moreover, “the plaintiffs do not state that they will repay grant money if the Government ultimately prevails.”
The case is known as National Institutes of Health v. American Public Health Association.
The Department of Justice filed an emergency application with the nation’s highest court late last month, asking the justices to block a ruling by Boston-based U.S. District Judge William Young, who found the cancellation was unlawful and ordered the government to restore the funding.
NIH began taking steps in February to end the grants that conflict with President Donald Trump’s policy priorities.
The NIH is the world’s largest government funder of biomedical research.
The emergency application stemmed from two lawsuits challenging the cuts to grants involving DEI, “transgender issues,” “vaccine hesitancy,” and other issues.
The American Public Health Association described the cuts as an “ongoing ideological purge” of projects with a purported connection to gender identity, DEI, or “other vague, now-forbidden language.” A coalition of 16 attorneys general, largely Democrats, alleged their public research institutions are facing harm because of the funding delays and cuts.
The district court directed the NIH “to continue paying $783 million in federal grants that are undisputedly counter to the Administration’s priorities,” the department said in its filing.
“Following the change in Administration, the NIH identified, explained, and pursued new funding priorities. That is democracy at work, not, as the district court thought, proof of inappropriate ‘partisan[ship]’—let alone a permissible basis for setting agency action aside.”
In his written opinion, Gorsuch said the district court’s ruling upholding the grants conflicted with the Supreme Court’s decision in Department of Education v. California in April that let the Trump administration withdraw education-related grants.
“Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them,” Gorsuch said.
Unless we want anarchy to take over the federal judicial system, “a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be,” Gorsuch said, quoting a prior Supreme Court ruling.
In his dissenting opinion, Roberts said the district court ruling was justified.
“This relief—which has prospective and generally applicable implications beyond the reinstatement of specific grants—falls well within the scope of the District Court’s jurisdiction under the [federal] Administrative Procedure Act.”
Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined the dissent in part.
In her dissenting opinion, Jackson said the high court’s new ruling is “Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist,” a reference to a fictional game featured in the comic strip, “Calvin and Hobbes.”
“Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she said.
Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 11:05
Recent comments