Awkward: "Brazen Election Cheating" Allegations Rock Minneapolis Mayoral Endorsement

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:

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

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) August 21, 2025

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 - 14:25

From the Philly Fed:

The 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.
emphasis added

Note: These are coincident indexes constructed from state employment data. An explanation from the Philly Fed:

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.

Here is a map of the three-month change in the Philly Fed state coincident indicators. This map was all red during the worst of the Pandemic and also at the worst of the Great Recession.

The map is mostly positive on a three-month basis.

Source: Philly Fed.

And here is a graph is of the number of states with one month increasing activity according to the Philly Fed. 
This graph includes states with minor increases (the Philly Fed lists as unchanged).

In July, 39 states had increasing activity including minor increases.

  – by New Deal democrat The housing market, for all of its economic importance, tends to move as slow as molasses. This is especially true as to prices, where sellers are loathe to realize a loss, even when compared to hypothetical gains they could have had by selling earlier. The pandemic, of course, through […]

The post The rebalancing of the housing market continues, as existing home price increases have halted, and inventory finally exceeds 2020 levels appeared first on Angry Bear.

Beyond The Data Center: Goldman's Silicon Valley Field Trip Finds AI Moving From Chips To Workflows

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 - 13:40

Judge Declares Alina Habba's Roles As US Attorney For New Jersey 'Unlawful'

Authored 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 - 13:20

Trump 'Very Angry' At Ukraine Repeatedly Attacking Russian Pipeline To Hungary, Slovakia

For 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 - 13:00

FTC Sues Gym Chain For Making It 'Exceedingly Difficult' To Cancel Memberships

Authored 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 Response

Fitness 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 - 12:40

From Goldman:

We 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]

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

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 - 12:05

Bill Ackman Is Promoting An Anti-Woke AI-Powered School Coming To New York

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 - 12:05

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

By 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 - 11:45

US National Security Probe Targets Wind Industry

By 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 - 11:45

The post MAGA 2.0: Making China Great Again appeared first on CEPR.

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

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 - 11:25

Trump Laments Stalled Ukraine Peace Talks While Simultaneously Urging New Attacks On Russia

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 - 11:25

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

By 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

Supreme Court Allows Trump Admin To Revoke DEI-Related NIH Grants

By 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

As tariffs changed frequently throughout 2025, CBO has regularly updated the Congress about projected tariff revenues; this blog post is the latest in that series.

Trump 'Will Fire Cook' If She Doesn't Resign After Pulte Drops New Receipts

Update: President Trump just told reporters in Washington DC that he'll fire Cook if she doesn't resign. 

.@POTUS on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook: "I'll fire her if she doesn't resign. What she did was bad, so I'll fire her if she doesn't resign." pic.twitter.com/1vEv7k7ar8

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) August 22, 2025

*  *  *

Days after Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte wrote a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi claiming Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook "falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms" by claiming two homes as her primary residence, Pulte dropped new evidence on Friday suggesting that Cook lied again on a government form. 

"We have obtained a document Lisa Cook submitted to the U.S. Government while serving as Federal Reserve Governor. In it, on February 28, 2023, she represents to the U.S. Government that the Atlanta Property is her PERSONAL RESIDENCE," Pulte wrote on X. "However, Lisa Cook, as a then-sitting Fed Governor and six months earlier, on September 1, 2022, appears to have listed that same property for RENT."

We have obtained a document Lisa Cook submitted to the U.S. Government while serving as Federal Reserve Governor. In it, on February 28, 2023, she represents to the U.S. Government that the Atlanta Property is her PERSONAL RESIDENCE.

However, Lisa Cook, as a then-sitting Fed… pic.twitter.com/clclhtag9O

— Pulte (@pulte) August 22, 2025

Here are the 'receipts' spread out for your perusal: 

Recall that Cook listed the Atlanta Condo has her "Primary Residence" at the same time she was claiming a property in Michigan as her primary residence. 

Last week Pulte wrote a letter to Bondi and DOJ official Ed Martin suggesting that Cook may have committed a criminal offense. The letter alleges that Cook “falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms, potentially committing mortgage fraud under the criminal statute.”

Bloomberg reports that Pulte said Cook took a mortgage on a property in Ann Arbor, Michigan, signing a mortgage agreement that stipulated she would use the property as her primary residence for at least a year.

Two weeks later, according to the letter, she took another mortgage on a Georgia property and also declared it would be her primary residence.

Pulte also called on Bondi to look into whether Cook misrepresented her circumstances by later listing the Georgia property for rental.

The letter prompted President Trump to respond, demanding "Cook must resign, now!!" 

Cook responded to the accusations; 

“I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet,” Cook said in a statement.

“I do intend to take any questions about my financial history seriously as a member of the Federal Reserve and so I am gathering the accurate information to answer any legitimate questions and provide the facts.”

Write anything you or your attorneys want Miss Cook, you’ve been caught based on mortgage documents, not a tweet. It’s black and white. We go after people who commit mortgage fraud, and you signed the mortgage documents, no one else. And you did it within 14 days of each other. https://t.co/LIRK89Zaf8

— Pulte (@pulte) August 20, 2025

Of note, she was nominated to the Fed by President Joe Biden and took office in 2022, becoming the first Black woman to serve on the Fed’s board of governors.

She was later nominated by Biden for a full term, which expires in 2038.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/22/2025 - 10:10

From Fed Chair Powell at Jackson Hole: Monetary Policy and the Fed’s Framework Review. Excerpts:

When I appeared at this podium one year ago, the economy was at an inflection point. Our policy rate had stood at 5-1/4 to 5-1/2 percent for more than a year. That restrictive policy stance was appropriate to help bring down inflation and to foster a sustainable balance between aggregate demand and supply. Inflation had moved much closer to our objective, and the labor market had cooled from its formerly overheated state. Upside risks to inflation had diminished. But the unemployment rate had increased by almost a full percentage point, a development that historically has not occurred outside of recessions.1 Over the subsequent three Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings, we recalibrated our policy stance, setting the stage for the labor market to remain in balance near maximum employment over the past year.

This year, the economy has faced new challenges. Significantly higher tariffs across our trading partners are remaking the global trading system. Tighter immigration policy has led to an abrupt slowdown in labor force growth. Over the longer run, changes in tax, spending, and regulatory policies may also have important implications for economic growth and productivity. There is significant uncertainty about where all of these polices will eventually settle and what their lasting effects on the economy will be.

Changes in trade and immigration policies are affecting both demand and supply. In this environment, distinguishing cyclical developments from trend, or structural, developments is difficult. This distinction is critical because monetary policy can work to stabilize cyclical fluctuations but can do little to alter structural changes.

The labor market is a case in point. The July employment report released earlier this month showed that payroll job growth slowed to an average pace of only 35,000 per month over the past three months, down from 168,000 per month during 2024 (figure 2).2 This slowdown is much larger than assessed just a month ago, as the earlier figures for May and June were revised down substantially.3 But it does not appear that the slowdown in job growth has opened up a large margin of slack in the labor market—an outcome we want to avoid. The unemployment rate, while edging up in July, stands at a historically low level of 4.2 percent and has been broadly stable over the past year. Other indicators of labor market conditions are also little changed or have softened only modestly, including quits, layoffs, the ratio of vacancies to unemployment, and nominal wage growth. Labor supply has softened in line with demand, sharply lowering the "breakeven" rate of job creation needed to hold the unemployment rate constant. Indeed, labor force growth has slowed considerably this year with the sharp falloff in immigration, and the labor force participation rate has edged down in recent months.

Overall, while the labor market appears to be in balance, it is a curious kind of balance that results from a marked slowing in both the supply of and demand for workers. This unusual situation suggests that downside risks to employment are rising. And if those risks materialize, they can do so quickly in the form of sharply higher layoffs and rising unemployment.

At the same time, GDP growth has slowed notably in the first half of this year to a pace of 1.2 percent, roughly half the 2.5 percent pace in 2024 (figure 3). The decline in growth has largely reflected a slowdown in consumer spending. As with the labor market, some of the slowing in GDP likely reflects slower growth of supply or potential output.

Turning to inflation, higher tariffs have begun to push up prices in some categories of goods. Estimates based on the latest available data indicate that total PCE prices rose 2.6 percent over the 12 months ending in July. Excluding the volatile food and energy categories, core PCE prices rose 2.9 percent, above their level a year ago. Within core, prices of goods increased 1.1 percent over the past 12 months, a notable shift from the modest decline seen over the course of 2024. In contrast, housing services inflation remains on a downward trend, and nonhousing services inflation is still running at a level a bit above what has been historically consistent with 2 percent inflation (figure 4).

The effects of tariffs on consumer prices are now clearly visible. We expect those effects to accumulate over coming months, with high uncertainty about timing and amounts. The question that matters for monetary policy is whether these price increases are likely to materially raise the risk of an ongoing inflation problem. A reasonable base case is that the effects will be relatively short lived—a one-time shift in the price level. Of course, "one-time" does not mean "all at once." It will continue to take time for tariff increases to work their way through supply chains and distribution networks. Moreover, tariff rates continue to evolve, potentially prolonging the adjustment process.

It is also possible, however, that the upward pressure on prices from tariffs could spur a more lasting inflation dynamic, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed. One possibility is that workers, who see their real incomes decline because of higher prices, demand and get higher wages from employers, setting off adverse wage–price dynamics. Given that the labor market is not particularly tight and faces increasing downside risks, that outcome does not seem likely.

Another possibility is that inflation expectations could move up, dragging actual inflation with them. Inflation has been above our target for more than four years and remains a prominent concern for households and businesses. Measures of longer-term inflation expectations, however, as reflected in market- and survey-based measures, appear to remain well anchored and consistent with our longer-run inflation objective of 2 percent.

Of course, we cannot take the stability of inflation expectations for granted. Come what may, we will not allow a one-time increase in the price level to become an ongoing inflation problem.

Putting the pieces together, what are the implications for monetary policy? In the near term, risks to inflation are tilted to the upside, and risks to employment to the downside—a challenging situation. When our goals are in tension like this, our framework calls for us to balance both sides of our dual mandate. Our policy rate is now 100 basis points closer to neutral than it was a year ago, and the stability of the unemployment rate and other labor market measures allows us to proceed carefully as we consider changes to our policy stance. Nonetheless, with policy in restrictive territory, the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.

Monetary policy is not on a preset course. 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.