What's The Future Of Russia's Bases In Syria?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Lavrov suggested that they could facilitate the dispatch of aid to Africa, but it’s also possible that they might host complex military-diplomatic talks between all stakeholders in Syria while also helping its armed forces maintain national unity by re-equipping, training, and advising them too.

Russian-Syrian relations are interesting for many observers due to the realpolitik that’s come to define them since Assad’s downfall last December.

Ahmed “Jolani” Sharaa’s Al Qaeda-descended Hayat Tahrir al-Sham was designated as terrorists by Russia prior to their Turkish-backed seizure of power, and they accordingly hated Russia for bombing them, yet both swiftly put that aside. The fact of that matter is that their respective state interests require continued cooperation regardless of whoever’s in power in Syria.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov hinted at the future of his country’s bases there in an interview that aired last week ahead of Sharaa’s trip to Moscow on Wednesday to meet with Putin.

While their summit was certainly important, Lavrov’s remarks shed more light on this subject than the opening statements from their talks (there was no press conference afterwards), which is why his words form the basis of this analysis.

Here’s exactly what he said, which will then be analyzed:

“The function must be reconfigured. One clear task that could benefit the Syrians, their neighbours, and many other countries is establishing a humanitarian hub, utilising the port and airport to deliver humanitarian supplies from Russia and the Persian Gulf states to Africa.

There is a shared understanding that this will be in demand, and we are prepared to coordinate the details. The matter has, in principle, been discussed, and there is mutual interest.”

This is a unique proposal that would allow these facilities to become logistical hubs for supplying Russian, Arab, and possibly others’ aid to Africa. Russia’s continued dispatch of donated foodstuffs, mostly wheat, as well as discounted energy and fertilizer helped avert a chain reaction of tragedies over the past 3,5 years that could have exploded due to the West’s unilateral sanctions.

There might be more to the future of Russia’s bases in Syria than just that, however, judging by what else Lavrov said:

“We understand Israel’s legitimate security concerns (in Syria)…

Yet, the interests of other actors must also be safeguarded. In the northeast, there are the Kurds, whom the Biden administration began courting, actively encouraging separatist sentiments.

Our Turkish counterparts maintain a presence in the north, along their border with Syria. Meanwhile, Alawites and Christians continue to face persecution – recently exemplified by a barbaric attack on a church.”

He then added that all those with influence in Syria must prioritize its unity and declared that “We are prepared to collaborate on these matters with other nations pursuing their interests in the Syrian Arab Republic.”

Accordingly, it can be intuited that Russia’s military facilities could hypothetically host security talks between these conflicting parties, while its armed forces and diplomats could also provide advisory services to their Syrian counterparts to advance their shared goal of maintaining national unity.

Therefore, while the official reason for retaining Russia’s bases in Syria might be to facilitate aid to Africa and possibly host complex military-diplomatic talks, the real purpose might be to re-equip, train, and advise its army, albeit within the unofficial limits imposed by Israel and agreed to by Syria in that event.

This vision was first shared in early February here and thus presciently predicted what’s thus far come to pass. These plans could still be offset, but for the time being, they arguably appear to be on track.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 23:25

Reporters Leave Pentagon En Masse After All But One Outlet Rejects New Rules

Wednesday evening saw reporters from nearly every major network and mainstream news outlet hand in their press badges and exit the Pentagon, following their refusal to sign a new policy issued by War Secretary Pete Hegseth.

"Today, the Defense Department confiscated the badges of the Pentagon reporters from virtually every major media organization in America," the Pentagon Press Association announced in a statement.

"The Pentagon Press Association's members are still committed to reporting on the U.S. military," it added. "But make no mistake, today, Oct. 15, 2025 is a dark day for press freedom that raises concerns about a weakening U.S. commitment to transparency in governance, to public accountability at the Pentagon and to free speech for all."

Those who did not sign the new policy which vows to not seek or obtain classified, sensitive, or leaked material said the document would expose journalists to potential prosecution.

Axios, which did not sign, also listed the following non-signers who have been effectively booted from the Pentagon premises: Fox News, NBC, ABC, CNN, NPR, AP, the Washington Post and the New York Times, and others. However, One America News (OAN) was a significant network that did sign it.

According to the NY Times, the request for a Pentagon press badge went from signing one page of rules/policy to a whopping 21-pages detailing what reporters can and can't do: 

The new rules codify sharp limitations on access and raise the prospect of punishment — including revocation of credentials — for simply requesting information on matters of public interest. Lawyers representing national news organizations have been negotiating for weeks with Pentagon officials over the strictures.

Since being introduced last month, there's been a full-on, very public revolt against the policy. Ironically, it was Hegseth himself who earlier in the Trump administration had been thrust into the center of controversy due to the embarrassing Yemen group chat Signal episode.

Outlets had been told to sign the pledge by Tuesday at 5 pm or surrender their press credentials within 24 hours. So by close of Wednesday, large groups of journalists were seen walking from the Pentagon to the parking lot with all of their things.

Via X

Hegseth responded on social media to this MSM media exit with a dismissive wave emoji directed at the outlets’ statements. He subsequently posted a list titled “Press Credentialing FOR DUMMIES,” outlining new restrictions such as visible badge requirements and a prohibition on "soliciting criminal acts."

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 23:00

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners' Homes

By Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America,

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment's core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called "welfare check." They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him. 

Case survived, but his rights did not.

During this so-called "emergency" situation, police stood around for 40 minutes, armed themselves with rifles and a ballistic shield, went into Trevor Case's home without a warrant, and shot him. https://t.co/vRpkDaKKX5 pic.twitter.com/lBTGWnszPT

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 15, 2025

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police's warrantless entry. Apparently, the government's "reasonable suspicion" that Treavor Case might need "help" was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

And it was not as if obtaining a warrant would have been difficult. A recent Harvard Law Review study found that 93 percent of warrants are approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes. With modern technology, police can draft and submit warrant requests directly from their phones. The officers in Montana had nearly an hour to seek judicial approval. They chose not to.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man's home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as "community caretakers." The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment's protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended "caretaking" exceptions.

The facts in Montana look nothing like an emergency. Body camera transcripts reveal that officers themselves doubted that Case required immediate aid. One noted that "chances are pretty slim" he needed urgent medical attention. They discussed staging medical personnel outside but decided against it. After forty minutes of hesitation, they declared the situation an "emergency" and broke in anyway.

In any other context, an armed entry without a warrant would be understood as unlawful. The Constitution does not stop at the property line of a gun owner. If a homeowner responds defensively to armed intruders, the law recognizes the basic right of self-defense. What transforms that same scenario into a police action is supposed to be the warrant requirement. Strip that away, and the police have no more right to enter than anyone else.

Pam Bondi's Department of Justice, however, has sided with Montana. 

FYI @TheJusticeDept supports the warrantless home invasion of gunv owner Trevor Case.

DOJ says federal agents (like @ATFHQ) "make warrantless entries into residences" & need to "prosecute cases" where they "encounter evidence of a crime" without a warrant. https://t.co/jsDfw4nci3 pic.twitter.com/a5dsrKiczu

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 15, 2025

In an amicus brief, DOJ argued that when police are "providing aid" rather than investigating a crime, they should not need probable cause or a warrant. That claim, if accepted, creates a dangerous loophole: police may simply reframe their role to avoid constitutional limits.

The risks are obvious. A neighbor calls for a welfare check. Officers arrive, say they are caretakers, and enter without a warrant. Inside, they confront a homeowner startled by strangers in his house. The encounter escalates, and the mere presence of a firearm becomes justification for force. What began as a welfare check ends as a shooting.

The Framers wrote the Fourth Amendment to prevent precisely this kind of abuse. 

Judicial oversight was designed to ensure that government agents could not force their way into private homes unless a neutral magistrate agreed the evidence justified it. By lowering the bar from probable cause to suspicion, the Montana court has eroded that safeguard.

Caniglia was unanimous and recent. For Pam Bondi's DOJ to back Montana in this case is not simply inconsistent with precedent; it also undermines the Fourth Amendment principle that the home is a place of security. If the Supreme Court accepts this reasoning, the Fourth Amendment will be reduced to a formality.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:35

Transportation Sec. Duffy Says Leftist Gov. Moore Is 'Poor Steward' Of Collapsed Key Bridge Rebuild Funds

Leftist Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, who appears to be friends with the "dark-money NGO King" - the Soros family, specifically Alex Soros...

... and was recently caught "half-naked" on George Clooney's luxury motor yacht in Italy. 

Who has also seen collapsing poll numbers in a deep-blue state overtaken by radical leftists in Annapolis, who care more about criminal illegal aliens, higher taxes, an exploding deficit fueled by out-of-control spending, toxic social and criminal justice reforms, the promotion of the climate crisis hoax, and dark-money-funded NGOs.

Everyone knows Democrats aren't competent managers but rather left-wing activists who squander the nation's wealth created by those who actually build systems, whether at the state, local, or federal level. This understanding comes as Maryland's fiscal deficit worsens, raising alarm bells within the Trump administration about whether Democrats in the state, specifically Moore, can properly manage the rebuild of the collapsed Francis Scott Key Bridge. 

18 months later... 

Fox Baltimore reports that U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned Gov. Moore that Maryland's $2 billion rebuild project of the bridge, which relies heavily on federal taxpayer money, is coming under intense scrutiny because the project's costs are "ballooning," schedules are slipping, and certain hiring practices may violate federal law. 

"It's my job to ensure the American people's tax dollars are spent properly and major projects are completed on time and on budget," Duffy wrote in a recent letter to Moore. "Ballooning project costs are already threatening to delay this critical project."

Moore has not yet replied to Duffy's letter and has avoided interviews despite repeated media requests, according to the local media outlet. 

In an exclusive interview with Fox Baltimore on Tuesday at Baltimore/Washington Thurgood Marshall International Airport, Duffy doubled down on his concerns that Moore and Maryland officials are not competent "stewards with the money"... 

"The federal government is going to pay for the project, but the governor is going to manage it. And when someone else pays, at a wedding, you get the finest alcohol, you'll get the finest steak if someone else is buying. We need to make sure we're looking out for the federal taxpayer and also rebuild this bridge.

"I don't think he has been a good steward with the money, but also, we have sent a letter to all of our partners saying they have to follow the law." 

Today, I reviewed the history of the Key Bridge rebuild, including what Maryland Gov. Wes Moore once highlighted as one of the best examples of state and federal partnership.

That partnership now seems to be deteriorating as the federal government is increasing scrutiny. pic.twitter.com/KSCIJj4ozr

— Gary M. Collins (@realgarycollins) October 16, 2025

Duffy's criticism of Moore and radical leftists in Maryland didn't stop at their fiscal management. He warned new concerns about the state's approach to diversity hiring, particularly regarding race- and sex-based contractor selection. 

"A long time ago, we got rid of contracting based on race and sex," Duffy said, adding, "That can drive the cost up and the time frame up for completion."

Eighteen months later, and still no new bridge (China would've had this built in six months). The project exemplifies the incompetence of Democrats who masquerade as competent managers but are actually left-wing activists. Their intent isn't to build but to squander the nation's inheritance through socialist and Marxist policies.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 22:10

Extending The ACA Subsidies?

Authored by Bill King via RealClearPolitics,

Over the last week, the decision on whether to extend the enhanced ACA subsidies has increasingly become the defining issue of the shutdown.  It is an issue that is fracturing the Republican Party and threatening to derail their midterm election prospects.

Unpacking the numbers

From the outset, the Affordable Care Act subsidized the purchase of health insurance by some lower-income Americans on the health insurance exchanges. The subsidy was based on a sliding scale that set a maximum a person would pay as a percentage of their income. The ceiling for the subsidy was originally 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Today, that is about $60,000 for an individual, a little over $80,000 for a couple, and $124,000 for a family of four.  Anyone who exceeded that ceiling got no subsidy when purchasing their insurance.

For those below the ceiling, the government would pick up the cost of the insurance that was above a percentage of the person’s income. That ranged from just over 2% to almost 10%. According to CMS Marketplace data, the subsidy typically covered 75-85% of the premiums for this group. Before the expansion, nearly 9 million Americans received the subsidy, and they accounted for over three-quarters of all Marketplace enrollment. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the subsidy was costing the federal government about $50 billion annually.

During the pandemic, Congress expanded the eligibility criteria for the subsidy by eliminating the income limits. But the expansion was only temporary, scheduled to expire at the end of 2025. Since the expansion was adopted during the pandemic and was set to expire automatically, a narrative emerged that the expansion was a pandemic response that would no longer be necessary after the pandemic ended. But the truth is that the expansion had nothing to do with the pandemic. The pandemic was just a pretext to expand coverage, something Democrats had long sought to do. The automatic termination was included to reduce the projected effect on the deficit. This allowed Democrats to use the reconciliation process to avoid a Republican filibuster.

The expansion eliminated the 400% of FPL limit. However, the benefit was capped by requiring that individuals must pay 8.5% of their income toward the premium before they could receive any subsidy. Furthermore, the premium is based on a particular level of coverage that currently costs about $10,000 per year for a single adult.

The net effect of the expanded subsidy rules is to reduce the subsidy as a person’s income increases gradually. For most people, the subsidy goes to zero at an income of about $120,000 for an individual and about $240,000 for a couple. This opened the subsidy to millions of Americans who did not previously qualify. As a result, the number of Americans participating in the Marketplace leaped from 11 million to 21 million, and those receiving some subsidy went from about 8.8 million to 13.3 million. The average monthly subsidy went from $525 to just over $600. The expansion benefits have been costing about $40 billion per year. This is consistent with the CBO’s estimate late last year of the cost to extend the enhanced subsidy. That would add about 2% to the projected federal deficit.

Unpacking the politics

The Democrats adopted the expansion on a straight party vote. Not a single Republican voted for the original extension. However, it turns out that Americans across the political spectrum came to strongly support the expansion of the subsidies.

A poll by the KFF (fka the Kaiser Family Foundation) found that 77% of Americans want Congress to extend the subsidies. The extension enjoys remarkable support across the political spectrum. Even self-identified MAGA Republicans favor the extension 56-43.

Earlier this year, KFF conducted a detailed analysis of the effect of the expiring subsidies by congressional district. Those most impacted are skewed toward districts currently held by Republicans. In all but one district with an incumbent Republican, voters over 60 who are currently receiving the subsidy would see an increase in their premium of over 100%. These individuals make up 7% of the population of those districts. Since they are over 60, most are likely registered voters and typically vote Republican.

We are currently entering the ACA reenrollment period, and many Americans are learning for the first time how much their premiums may go up. As a result, Republican members of Congress are hearing from their constituents. It is, therefore, not surprising that a growing number of Republican members are breaking with the leadership on extending the subsidies. Most notable has been MAGA loyalist Marjorie Taylor Greene.

A compromise on subsidies may be the off-ramp to end the shutdown. If the Senate were to pass a clean bill with an extension of the subsidies, it is hard to imagine the House would not do the same.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 21:45

Last week, Gillian Brown, Chief Investment Officer, Public & Private Investments, Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan discussed the organization's approach to global markets, risk management and positioning for long-term growth with Bloomberg's Derek DeCloet at the 2025 Bloomberg Canadian Finance Conference in New York. 

Take the time to watch the clip below as she runs through her thoughts on private and public markets and where Teacher's is focusing its attention on and where it's not.

A lot of the stuff I covered with Gillian when we last spoke here along with CEO Jo Taylor and and CIO of Asset Allocation, Stephen McLennan. 

For example, Gillian shared this with me on private markets:

On the private asset side which is where we make the distinction in the mid-year around the performance of public markets versus private markets, the private assets were a pretty flat contributor to the portfolio this year. 

Year-to-date, clearly not what we'd like to see out of some of those asset classes. And I think it's a continuation of the story I've been telling, if I think about private equity, we've been saying it has been a very important  long-term contributor over to total fund results. We know that the industry is one in transition, that the economic environment is different than the one that created the heyday of private equity, so we need to be mindful of that in thinking about what those forward looking returns can be. 

And making sure we are thinking about our portfolio with our Portfolio Solutions group, leaning into the assets, driving the returns we want out of those assets. But on a prospective basis, how much do we want in private versus public markets, how much do we want in our internal active management programs versus what we may give to an external fund manager where we think they have competencies we may not have in those specialty focused areas.

I think it's similar to some of the issues we would have discussed a year ago at this time, just that those markets are transitioning to a different macro and political environment and private markets takes more time to adjust to some of those changes versus public markets where more quick adjustments.

Gillian had this to say on long-term value creation: “I think the question is, how do you generate returns out of private assets? For us that means focusing on the operating-company-level results.”

She basically explains how rates reset after the pandemic and why financial engineering is dead in private equity, you need a long-term value creation plan and you need to be on the deal teams from the get-go. 

She also explains why their expected returns for private equity has come down in a post-Covid world.

She also discusses why Teachers' decided to internalize international real estate because that wasn't Cadillac Fairview's "edge", it was more operating domestic office and retail properties.

Some of the more interesting remarks were on public markets where she admits OTPP and other funds cannot beat the S&P 500 especially in these markets but they still have conviction they can add excess returns in private markets over a cycle.

She also admits they lean on their external hedge fund managers to deliver some alpha over their beta exposure in public markets.

This goes back to the Ron Mock days when he told me: "beta is cheap, we can swap into any beta exposure for a few basis points and add alpha over that using external alpha providers that provide alpha we cannot generate internally."

To make a long story short, Teachers' invests roughly 10% of its assets in external hedge funds using a portable alpha structure and they try to generate T-bills + 300 bps (used to be T-bills + 500 bps). 

She discusses how they got into private credit back in 2020 during the early days of Covid using funds initially but they've been doing it for a long time but never bucketed it as an asset class.  

Lastly, she admits valuations in private markets are extended but "overheated stocks can become more overheated." They prefer playing the AI theme through private markets like electricity transmission or other AI related themes.

Anyway, take the time to listen to Gillian explain it all, she shares quite a bit and is an excellent communicator going through how they approach private and public markets. 

Cybertruck Owners Organize Meetups To Trade Tales Of Unhinged Reactions By Strangers

There's probably no more polarizing and outright catchy vehicle on the road than the Tesla Cybertruck. Depending on who you ask, the Tesla Cybertruck is either the future of American engineering or a stainless-steel political statement.

But to some at a Cybertruck meetup in Palm Springs, it's simpler than that, according to a new profile by Wired. “To me, it's just a vehicle that I love,” says Andrew Castillo, a stock trader from Los Angeles. “It has no political affiliations at all to me.”

The event was organized by Michael Goldman, who runs the 53,000-member Facebook group Cybertruck Owners Only. Goldman, who nicknamed his truck “Beastie,” says reactions are often strong — both positive and negative. “When I first got it, my wife really made fun of me for it,” he says. “She actually made a T-shirt. It says ‘It looks like a brick and moves like a beast.’” Her opinion changed after seeing it in action towing dump trailers and hauling equipment. “Now she says it’s actually pretty cool.”

Goldman recalls one of his more extreme encounters in a Whole Foods parking lot, when a woman driving an electric Mustang left a note on his truck that read, “This is an extension of your small dick.” When he confronted her, he says, “She called me a Nazi.” After he pointed out his last name — Goldman — and that he’s Jewish, the conversation shifted. “She broke down in tears and apologized,” he says. “It just blew my mind that people will judge someone based on the vehicle they drive.”

Russ Taylor, who runs an off-road rally business called Smugglers Runs, added: “I loved just the style, the look—it’s totally unique.” Taylor says the reactions he gets are mostly limited to stares or hand gestures. “It’s kind of dumb that it’s become a political statement,” he adds. “It’s just a vehicle.”

Photo: Wired

Castillo says that compared to his past luxury cars, Cybertruck owners are unusually open and friendly. “With Bentleys or Rolls-Royces, people were standoffish,” he says. “With Cybertruck owners, it’s, ‘Hey, you want to see it? Come on. You want to test drive it? Come on.’ They’re more inclusive.”

For Frank and Diane Brabec of Indio, California, the truck has been a surprisingly practical addition. “It took me about three days to get used to it because it’s so different to drive,” says Frank, a consultant. “It’s the only vehicle [in the U.S.] with steer-by-wire—no physical connection between the wheel and tires.”

“We’ve only been flipped off like three times,” she adds, laughing. “Maybe four.”

Reactions from strangers are part of the package. At the same Palm Springs meetup, a driver in a sedan slowed down just long enough to shout, “Your cars are fucking ugly!” before speeding off. Castillo only smiled. “Some people just aren’t playing with a full deck of cards,” he said.

Wired writes that Jose Reynoso, a small-business owner who uses his Cybertruck for advertising, says Musk’s public controversies made things complicated. “For the CEO of a company that makes a product a lot of Americans buy to put us in the middle of everything because of his controversies — it was sad to see that,” he says. “We saw wives and kids being harassed just because we were driving a Tesla.” For that reason, he doesn’t take the truck to client sites anymore.

Photo: Wired

Others, like Roger Davis from San Diego, embrace the attention. “What I love about the truck is just how it’s so polarizing,” he says. Davis says he’s taken his truck through the Rubicon Trail, spending about $50,000 to outfit it for off-road travel. The experience was grueling but, according to him, transformative. “I just felt the presence of God and a deep peace and love,” he says. “It really reset my life.”

Shawn Hyman and Nannette Vaglica, a couple from Palm Desert, appreciate the quieter side of the Cybertruck experience. “It’s a different feeling than a gas car,” says Nannette. “There’s no shifting — it’s supersmooth.” Shawn adds, “Instant power. Instant torque.” They admire Elon Musk, too. “He’s a brilliant mind,” says Nannette. “I didn’t care about his politics,” Shawn adds. “He’s building some really neat stuff.”

Meanwhile, Alex Ferguson, a Cybertruck wrapper from Austin, Texas, has built a business around the vehicle’s notoriety. “When Tesla announced it, I bought all the domain variations of ‘wrapping Cybertrucks,’” he says. Since then, he’s wrapped more than 400 of them, many in cosmic or “space” designs. “It’s usually Tesla fans or space fans or engineering people,” he says.

Despite the controversies, quirks, and insults shouted from passing cars, Cybertruck owners say the experience has been overwhelmingly positive. “Kids love it,” says Castillo. “People cheer. I’ve had some nice cars, but never one that made people cheer.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 21:20

John Bolton Indicted On 18 Counts Over Mishandling Classified Documents

Update (2020ET): CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports that in the first reaction to his indictment, John Bolton conjures images of himself as true American hero and Trump as Stalin: (emphasis ours)

"For four decades, I have devoted my life to America’s foreign policy and national security. I would never compromise those goals. I tried to do that during my tenure in the first Trump Administration but resigned when it became impossible to do so.

Donald Trump’s retribution against me began then, continued when he tried unsuccessfully to block the publication of my book, The Room Where It Happened, before the 2020 election, and became one of his rallying cries in his re-election campaign. 

Now, I have become the latest target in weaponizing the Justice Department to charge those he deems to be his enemies with charges that were declined before or distort the facts.

My book was reviewed and approved by the appropriate, experienced career clearance officials. When my e-mail was hacked in 2021, the FBI was made fully aware. In four years of the prior administration, after these reviews, no charges were ever filed.

Then came Trump 2 who embodies what Joseph Stalin’s head of secret police once said, 'You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.'

These charges are not just about his focus on me or my diaries, but his intensive effort to intimidate his opponents, to ensure that he alone determines what is said about his conduct. Dissent and disagreement are foundational to America’s constitutional system, and vitally important to our freedom.

I look forward to the fight to defend my lawful conduct and to expose his abuse of power."

Shame...

*  *  *

Update (1925ET): An 18-count indictment accused President Trump's former national security adviser-turned-adversary, John Bolton, of mishandling classified national defense information (NDI), including eight counts of transmission and ten counts of unlawful retention.

According to the indictment, Bolton used personal email and messaging accounts to transmit Top Secret intelligence about foreign adversaries, future attacks, and U.S. foreign-policy relations. He also kept classified files at his home, including sensitive intelligence about foreign leaders and U.S. intelligence sources.

The FBI Baltimore Field Office led the investigation, with oversight from the Justice Department's National Security Division. The indictment outlines two core allegations:

1. Eight counts of transmission of NDI under the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §793(d)),

2. and Ten counts of unlawful retention of NDI under §793(e).

Attorney General Pamela Bondi wrote in a statement, "There is one tier of justice for all Americans. Anyone who abuses a position of power and jeopardizes our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law."

Justice Department Statements Regarding Indictment of Former National Security Advisor John Bolton https://t.co/lrNzDZqzvi @FBIBaltimore pic.twitter.com/yLcEqSjkLF

— FBI (@FBI) October 16, 2025

Each count carries a maximum of 10 years in federal prison, meaning Bolton faces up to 180 years if convicted on all charges. 

Here are some of the highlights of the indictment:

While John Bolton was trafficking top secret intel to his friends, Iran apparently hacked his email account, according to the 18-count federal indictment against him. pic.twitter.com/teVfK8KWts

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) October 16, 2025

From the John Bolton indictment -

Bolton's personal email - which contained classified info - was hacked by Iran.

Bolton notified the Gov't of the hack - but did not mention his possession of the classified info/docs. pic.twitter.com/sacZtRK6Kk

— Techno Fog (@Techno_Fog) October 16, 2025

Lmfao this is allegedly an exchange John Bolton had with his friends while sending them classified information:

"More stuff coming!!!... None of which we talk about!!!"

"Shhhh" pic.twitter.com/KRY1olXzWD

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) October 16, 2025

Read the full indictment:

*   *    * 

The US Justice Department has charged former National Security adviser John Bolton for his handling of classified documents, Bloomberg reports, citing a person familiar with the matter.

 

Bolton was indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland, according to the report.

The indictment came hours after several news outlets reported that the indictment was imminent. 

Bolton's lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said his client did nothing inappropriate with classified records - however part of the criminal investigation into Bolton has focused on what resembled diary entries of private notes he made for himself on an AOL email account - which may have contained classified information. 

He allegedly shared highly classified information with his wife and daughter, CNN is also reporting. 

The FBI executed a search warrant on Bolton's Maryland home and Washington, DC office over the summer - during which agents seized multiple documents labeled "secret," "confidential," and "classified" - including some which mentioned weapons of mass destruction, according to court records. 

Bolton on leaking of classified information. Give him what he wants. https://t.co/Gf7jVPx9wk pic.twitter.com/fBwLi3vfyX

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 16, 2025

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 19:25

The Party Of Panic: How Democrats Turn Every Crisis Into A Skit

Authored by David Manney via PJMedia.com,

They call it leadership; we call it theater...

While the federal shutdown grinds on, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have clearly perfected a strange new art form: performative politics, where each word is a cue, every accusation a prop, and every tweet an audition for those who can look the most indignant while working the least.

In the meantime, President Donald Trump isn't playing along; he's rewriting the script in real time, walking over Schumer and Jeffries online, each dropping posts and videos that make Democrats look like out-of-work actors fumbling through a forgotten scene.

The Optics of Outrage

There's only one person who loves a podium more than a union boss loves a microphone: Sen. Schumer, who talks of compassion and compromise, but whose Senate has turned into a stalled parade float: lots of color, with no movement.

Each day, Schumer and Jeffries hold press conferences blaming Republicans for "holding America hostage," yet their "solutions" amount to more spending, conditions, and delays.

When Schumer says, "We're fighting for the people," you hear scuffling and the sound of human flesh smacking onto the floor because the irony practically trips over itself.

The only people who benefited from this shutdown are those who earn money collecting views on social media. Government workers miss paychecks, national parks close, and families lose confidence. But Democrats? They work hard to find new lighting angles that fit their outrage. 

Hakeem Jeffries, Master of Misfire

If one existed, the perfect understudy for a shutdown would be Hakeem Jeffries, whose speeches sound like they were written for a student rally, not the House of Representatives.

Jeffries readily accused Republicans of chaos, insisting that Trump "marched the nation into darkness." A little while later, Jeffries walked off-stage to check how the clip performed online.

One thing he mastered was the political selfie: always framed and never candid. Jeffries would smoothly deliver a monologue about compassion while standing in a building he helped close — one that was now locked.

As the White House negotiates, Jeffries demands that "Republicans get back to work!"

Given that his party helped shut it all down, they used the same tactics they used with the border, crime, and inflation — causing the fire, then blaming the firefighter for showing up with a hose.

Shutdown by Design

We're not watching an example of gridlock; we're seeing extravagant choreography from a Democratic Party that knew it was coming.

President Trump canceled a meeting with Schumer and Jeffries weeks before the deadline, signaling that the days of performative pleating were finally over. When the shutdown hit, the online team for the White House decided to turn the situation into an absolute spectacle, flooding feeds with edited clips and punchy quips that made Democrats look like punchlines.

Like Sylvester the Cat(s) going up against the mice, Schumer and Jeffries took the bait, condemning "digital bullying" and then doing precisely what the administration wanted: prolonging the argument, extending airtime, and making themselves the story.

President Trump didn't simply outmaneuver them; he outproduced them.

When Democrats thought they were simply hosting a press conference, Trump turned it into a roast.

The Party of Panic

Panic became the currency of the Democrats, who found themselves addicted to crisis because it's the only time anybody listens.

Democrats discovered that drama pays better than progress, that when the lights dimmed in the Capitol, the cameras brightened in their offices.  Not just a little bit, either.

Senator Chuck "I love a slice of cheese on my raw hamburger patty" Schumer warns of economic damage while his caucus blocks spending votes. Jeffries laments the pain for working families while refusing to drop policy riders that have nothing to do with keeping the lights on, while claiming moral clarity, a perfect picture of performance dressed like principle.

Now, even the mainstream networks are starting to tire of the show; reporters whisper that the Senate has transformed into more like a film set than a governing body. Every line uttered from Jeffries' office is tested for "shareability," and every Schumer pause is scripted, becoming its own Saturday Night Live sketch, minus the legit laughs.

The Real Leader in the Room

No matter what you want to say about President Donald Trump, the man knows timing.

As Schumer and Jeffries practice their next press release, Trump lays out posts that reach tens of millions, setting the national narrative before breakfast has been served. 

Speaking directly to voters who remember what Washington looked like before becoming a hub for acting classes, Trump created a difference by governing to achieve results. At the same time, Schumer and Jeffries simply committed to creating performance art solely to be remembered.

Nowhere else does this hold. In politics, competence remains quiet, while chaos is loud, leading to one single fact: the Party of Panic has only one skill left — knowing how to yell.

Final Thoughts

Each time a government grinds to a halt because of a shutdown, budgets aren't the only thing tested: It tests who stays calm when the cameras roll.

Right now, President Trump owns the calm and isn't sweating after reading the script. Schumber and Jeffries, however, find themselves stuck in a repeated cycle of rehearsal, where they're forever searching for applause in a play that not a single soul wants to see twice.

Schumer and Jeffries, along with minor actors, have confused leadership with lightning cues, mistaking politics for performance art. Unfortunately for them, the curtain has already started to fall because the audience simply moved on.

Luckily for conservatives, the Party of Panic can't stop acting long enough to realize the "show" ended hours ago.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 19:15

Watch Live: Cuomo Vs. Mamdani Vs. Sliwa Face Off In NYC Mayoral Debate

Watch Live (due to start at 1900ET):

*  *  *

It’s crunch time in the race for Gracie Mansion. With early voting just a week away, Thursday night’s showdown between Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, independent Andrew Cuomo, and Republican Curtis Sliwa could reshape the fight for New York City’s top job - or cement Mamdani’s growing lead.

Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo, Curtis Sliwa

The 32-year-old socialist assemblyman from Queens, who rode a wave of progressive enthusiasm to win the Democratic primary, takes the debate stage with a double-digit advantage - and a target squarely on his back. Both Cuomo, the scandal-scarred former governor trying for a comeback, and Sliwa, the Guardian Angels founder and perpetual NYC agitator, are desperate for a breakout moment that could jolt a sluggish race.

The two-hour debate, hosted by NBC 4 New York, Telemundo 47, and Politico, will be broadcast live from 30 Rockefeller Plaza starting at 7 p.m. ET. The first hour will be televised, while the second will be streamed.

It marks the first time all three contenders will share the same stage - and likely one of the last before voters head to the polls.

Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, is now trying to recast his image from firebrand activist to pragmatic reformer. Once known for chanting “Defund the Police,” he now talks affordability, housing, and “a safer, fairer city.” But Cuomo and Sliwa are expected to hammer him over public safety, policing, and his earlier rhetoric.

Cuomo’s Tightrope

For Cuomo, the debate is do-or-die. Polls show the former governor trailing far behind his onetime primary rival, and he’s hoping a commanding performance can remind voters why they once trusted him to steer the state through crises.

Running as an independent, Cuomo is pitching himself as a centrist savior - the adult in the room between the “socialist left” and “Republican irrelevance.” But he faces a delicate balancing act: luring moderate Democrats and independents without appearing too cozy with conservatives.

“Mamdani’s a risk,” Cuomo told supporters this week. “I’m experience.” But experience cuts both ways — his 2021 resignation amid sexual harassment allegations still hangs over his candidacy like a storm cloud.

Then there’s Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa. Polling a distant third, the red-bereted rabble-rouser is under pressure to prove he deserves to stay in the race. Many anti-Mamdani voters see him as a spoiler splitting the non-progressive vote and want him to bow out in favor of Cuomo.

Sliwa says forget it. “I’m not going anywhere,” he told the Post. “New Yorkers deserve someone who doesn’t owe the machine a thing.” Expect the longtime radio host to use the debate to rail against crime, corruption, and “career politicians.”

Trump’s Shadow Looms

Even though Donald Trump isn’t on the ballot, his presence lingers. The president recently threatened to cut federal aid to New York if Mamdani wins - and even floated deploying the National Guard. Cuomo claims he’s the only candidate tough enough to stand up to Trump; Mamdani fires back that he’s the only one with no ties to him. As for Sliwa, a registered Republican, he’s keeping his distance - calling Trump “a distraction” and “not exactly a fan of Curtis Sliwa.”

The debate could define the home stretch of the race. Mamdani wants to project competence and calm; Cuomo needs redemption; Sliwa just wants relevance. For voters watching a city teetering between progressive dreams and hard realities, Thursday night may be the clearest look yet at who can actually run it.

 

 

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 18:50

"If You Don't Buy, You'll Miss Out": Weimar Vibes As Aussies Line Up To Buy Physical Gold

With precious metals making new record highs day after day, there are signs that demand is spreading much broader than simply central banks.

As we noted earlier, The UK's Royal Mint is overwhelmed with demand for physical silver coins:

Buyers have been flooding into London’s street-level bullion outlets too, with voracious demand for small bars and coins prompting the Royal Mint to run its presses harder.

“You’ve got this perfect storm at the moment,” said Emma Siebenborn, who runs Hatton Garden Metals.

And now, there are scenes sending Weiomar vibes (though absent the wheelbarrows full of notes) down-under...

As Tom Richardson reports for TheNightly.com.au, lines outside ABC Bullion have lengthened throughout 2025.

At lunchtime on Thursday they reached 60 metres, a real-life demonstration of the gold mania that has pushed the price up over 50% over the past 12 months.

“If you don’t buy, you’ll miss out,” said Matthew, who declined to share his last name.

“In theory if the US dollar crashes like they (globalists) want, gold can go to $US100,000 an ounce in five years, absolutely it’s realistic, gold’s money, all the other stuff is just paper.”

Matthew hates the banks, media, and government. He’s anti-immigration, in his early 70s and travelled to Sydney on Thursday from his Hawkesbury home to join a queue of Australians to buy gold from a bullion store on Sydney’s Martin Place.

A former tradesman and electrical engineer, he says he used to be a Labor voter who thought socialism wasn’t too bad.

“But the left has gone so far crazy now,” he complains.

“And now I’m classed as a crazy far-right nazi - that’s what they call us when we’re walking on the freedom marches.”

The ABC Bullion gold queue is multicultural, young and old, with most casually dressed as throngs of smartly dressed office workers race past at lunchtime.

The Queue pic.twitter.com/1STnZSkoaa

— Aditya Pandey (@DAdityaPandey) October 15, 2025

“I wouldn’t trust these banks as far as I could piss on them,” says Matthew who refuses to have his photo taken and regularly labels the media “all bullshit”.

“Three billion dollars a year they make on tap-and-go fees. And all these idiots walk around with their stupid mobile phones tapping and going everywhere, cos they’re too bloody lazy to carry cash. Now I just use cash and gold.”

New gold rush

The mania to buy gold has now spread from fed-up citizens like Matthew, to mums and dads, and Wall Street giants.

This week Goldman Sachs raised its price forecast for the precious metal and traditional safe-haven hedge by $US600 an ounce to $US4,900 an ounce by December 2026.

If the Wall Street titan is correct then the Australians who bought gold on Thursday will receive 14 per cent gains over the next 12 months given physical gold is currently trading at the ABC Bullion store for around $US4,040 an ounce.

Goldman Sachs cites strong central bank buying of the commodity as one factor pushing the price higher. Another factor is President Donald Trump’s tariff war and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Both are raising tensions between the US and the loose alliance of nations associated with the BRICs of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Gold as money

Gold has been attractive to investors and used as money for thousands of years. Until 1971 under the Bretton Woods monetary system the value of the US dollar was pegged to gold that meant one ounce could be exchanged for $US35.

Since President Richard Nixon scrapped this system in favour of money backed by a US government guarantee, its price in paper money or US dollars has multiplied around 115 times over 54 years.

The supply is scare and requires sophisticated mining techniques. Paper money can be printed by the billion in an instant.

Gold’s rise is often used as a proxy for the declining value of paper money as governments print more of it to fund spending and offset debts.

Some remain sceptical, including Shane Oliver, the chief economist at AMP Limited.

“A huge queue outside the bullion shop suggests this could be a euphoric top as people get FOMO (fear of missing out). It’s like when a taxi driver tells you to buy shares, it’s a sign things have gone too far,” warned Dr Oliver.

“It’s not a one-way bet, it had a great run in the 1970s and then collapsed, between 2011 and 2015 it slumped about 45 per cent. It’s also purely speculative as it produces no income, unlike shares or property, so you’re just relying on someone to come along and pay more for it than you.”

Cultural attraction

Another member of Thursday’s gold queue was 40-year-old Indian immigrant Ari Jadja.

The demographic of those in the line is interesting. I wonder if these people better understand how quickly currencies can collapse and are more in tune with that than anglo Australians because they came from unstable countries? Wouldn't surprise me.

— Rational Aussie (@rationalaussie) October 15, 2025

A married father of one, he lives in Western Sydney and works at Port Botany as a cargo handler. At his wedding 20 years ago in Amristar, Punjab, he says his father gifted gold to his wife, as is customary in Hindu ceremonies.

“So for 20 years I’ve known gold,” he says.

“I’ve got $20,000 to $30,000 worth. I just think it’s a good investment, steady, safe you know, not too risky. Shares are risky, crypto is too risky, not for me. In India it’s normal for families to own, it depends how wealthy they’re, but in weddings yes Hindu and Sikh, it’s a good gift.”

Others queuing included Abdul Mohammed, an Australian-Indian security screener at Sydney Airport and Dwayne, a 30-something secondary school teacher in regional New South Wales who used the school holidays to buy gold. Both expect the price to keep rising.

Dwayne says he taught himself about it on websites like YouTube and listening to podcasts. Like almost everyone else in Sydney’s elongating daily queue he says he expects the price to keep climbing and sees no reason to change a strategy that’s boosted his wealth.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 18:25

US Reports Biggest Ever Budget Surplus For Month Of September Thanks To Record Tariffs

Those looking for data on the US budget deficit contained in the Monthly Treasury Statement had to wait a few weeks because of the government shutdown, but better late than never, and today at 2pm, the Treasury unveiled the US income statement for the just concluded fiscal year 2025. It was ugly, but not as ugly as it could have been and the month of September was outright impressive. 

Starting at the top with the month of September, the numbers were surprisingly sold: total tax revenue of $543 billion were the highest since April (which is tax-collections month), a 3.2% improvement from a year ago, and pushed the 6-month moving average to a record high $496 billion.

As usual, the vast majority of govt receipts was in the form of individual income taxes ($298BN out of $544BN), with Social Security contributing about a 3rd of the total receipts and Corporate Income Taxes accounting for 11% or $62 billion of the total. 

On the outlays side, here too there were notable improvements, with the US government spending only $346 billion, a sharp from from the $689 billion in August, and down a whopping 25% from the $463 billion last September. Even more remarkable is that the six month moving average of govt spending suddenly slumped from $604 billion - the highest since covid - to $573 billion, the lowest since June 2024. Yes, the improvement may be small, but every little bit helps and whatever Trump is doing to shrink govt spending is starting to show.

As shown in the chart above, the biggest spending categories for Sept were Social Security, Health and National Defense, accounting for $133BN, $94BN and $76BN respectively. What is odd is that net interest was only $37BN which is likely due to some calendar effect and we expect this surprisingly low spending total to catch up in October. But for now we can enjoy the trend even if it is fake.

On a monthly basis, the September surplus was one of the best months in recent history for US government budget...

... and the just concluded month was a record for the month of September, which has traditionally been a strong, surplusy month except in the period following covid.

A big reason for the stellar September surplus is that tariff collections continued apace, and in September the US government collected a record $29.7 billion in tariffs, which translated in a record $195 billion for the fiscal year. And since Trump's tariff regime was only active for 6 of the past 12 month, expect tariffs to deliver about $350 billion in annual revenue every year, unless they are canceled.

Turning to the full fiscal year which concluded on Sept 30, the picture here was less pleasant, with the US spending just over $7 trillion (broken down below) offset by $5.2 trillion in receipts...

... resulting in a full-year deficit of $1.775 trillion which while still high, managed to stage an impressive reversal in recent months. As shown below, until a few months ago, 2025 was set to surpass both 2023 and 2024 in terms of the total deficit. And yet, in September, the belt-tightening meant that the cumulative full year deficit shrank enough to improve on both 2023 and 2024!

That's the good news. The bad news is that the impressive September numbers were largely a calendar effect with much of the outlays delayed until next month, which means October's numbers will be that much uglier. And worse, the exponential increase in total US debt which will surpass $38 trillion in 2 days and $40 trillion in under a year...

... means that the US interest expense continues to be the most dangerous, and rapidly rising, spending category of all: to wit, at $1.22 trillion in the past 12 months, gross interest expense is less than $400 billion away from catching up to Social Security Spending. 

And with annual gross interest unlikely to decline ever again, because while rates may drop, the total amount of debt on which they accrue will only keep rising, it is safe to say that every month and every year we will have a record LTM interest print...

... which is a problem, because tariffs or not, DOGE or not, the US spends 23 cents of every dollar in revenue collected to pay down just the interest on debt...

... and that number will keep rising indefinitely, which is also why gold is now pricing in the coming yield curve control as anything else means game over.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 18:00

Harvard Course On Black Women In Politics Omits Prominent Conservatives

Authored by Nancy Bareham via The College Fix,

Conservatives are nowhere to be seen in a Harvard University course focused on black women in politics, according to a copy of the syllabus obtained by The College Fix.

Dr. Mildred Jefferson, the first black woman to graduate from Harvard University's medical school; Courtesy of American Life League

'History 167: Race, Gender, and the Law Through the Archive' praises First Lady Michelle Obama, failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, and Vice President Kamala Harris for having “left their mark on 21st-century politics and grassroots organizing.”

The course says it will examine black women in the 20th century who “shap[ed] politics, grassroots organizing, the legal profession, and higher education during Jim (Jane) Crow and beyond.” Topics include “reproductive rights,” “non-binary people,” and “Black Feminism,” according to the syllabus.

But the course leaves out prominent conservative black women, including one who even made history at Harvard.

Left off of the syllabus are Zora Neale Hurston, Roberta Church, and Dr. Mildred Jefferson. Hurston is an accomplished writer and Republican, while Church served in both the Eisenhower and Nixon presidential administrations. Dr. Jefferson (pictured) was the first black woman to graduate from Harvard’s Medical School and advocated against abortion.

Professor Myisha Eatmon, one of the listed instructors on the course, did not respond to three inquiries made by The College Fix about who the class would study in the past several weeks. She has previously said “racism is a virus and white privilege is a drug,” according to the Washington Free Beacon. After publication of the article, a journalist at another publication informed The Fix that he received an automated response from Eatmon indicating she was on medical leave. The Fix had not received a similar response to past emails.

Students will read from critical race theorist Kimberle Crenshaw, Rutgers University Professor Brittney Cooper, and former Black Panther leader Angela Davis.

Learning objectives including defining “intersectionality,” understanding “the role of Black women in safeguarding reproductive rights leading up to Roe v. Wade and beyond, and “[e]xplain how Jim Crow affected the lives of Black women as individuals at the intersection of multiple identities.”

The course content drew criticism from Brenda Thiam, an ambassador for Project 21. The group advocates for black conservatism and is part of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“This course sounds like the content only leans towards far left agenda ideologies,” Thiam told The Fix via email.

“The first paragraph spoke only of Black women who are Democrats. Black Democrat women are not the only Black women who have paved the way in the political arena,” she said. Thiam is a former Republican legislator in Maryland.

By limiting the course to cover only liberal women in the world of politics they are denying students a full view of political history, Thiam said.

The former delegate mentioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and deceased Utah Congresswoman Mia Love as two people also worthy of recognition.

“These women were pioneers in the field of politics, and paved the way for other women who have served in politics,” she said.

“They must be included in the course content to ensure course participants receive a full range of political views.”

She said there is still some value to the course, because students will learn “about the work of women in politics who happen to be Black” and “will allow participants to consider their own path in politics as they learn about the work of women in politics.”

Yet, Thiam said, Harvard “must modify the course content to include conservative/Republican women’s views.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 17:40

'Disruptions Come First, Benefits Take Time': Fed Warns Of AI's Imminent Impact On Job Market

Earlier, Richmond Fed President Thomas Barkin told an audience at the Aiken Chamber of Commerce in South Carolina that consumers "are still spending ... we're not in 2022 anymore. Consumers aren't as flush," while also discussing artificial intelligence trends in the labor market. 

"While consumers are still spending, we are not in 2022 anymore. Consumers are not as flush. They are making choices," Barkin said, adding that demand remains strong among higher-income earners. 

Barkin then discussed AI trends reshaping the job market, noting that adoption is ramping up across call centers and in coding roles. He observed a noticeable shift in hiring dynamics, with executives reporting a surge in applicants for every open position.

UBS analyst Nana Antiedu was keeping track of Barkin's comments earlier... 

Barkin's comments come just one day after the Federal Reserve's Beige Book was released, which appeared rather uneventful at first glance. However, one section deserves attention (read here). Here's an excerpt from our note yesterday:

In labor markets, the picture remains one of muted stability and rising wages (thanks to the collapse of labor supply from illegal aliens). One notable change was the discussion of Artificial Intelligence as potentially taking away from labor demand. Oh, just wait: it's only starting... and it ends with Universal Basic Income. Here are the details: 

• In most Districts, more employers reported lowering head counts through layoffs and attrition, with contacts citing weaker demand, elevated economic uncertainty, and, in some cases, increased investment in artificial intelligence technologies.

Also yesterday, Fed Governor Christopher Waller addressed the long-standing debate over whether new technologies destroy or create jobs in Arlington at the DC Fintech Week... 

Whenever a new technology emerges, the first question economists get is about jobs: Will this replace people or make them more productive? The challenge is that, with innovation, there is often a time inconsistency between the costs and the benefits. The disruptions come first; the benefits take time. When a new technology appears, it's always easier to see the jobs that are likely to disappear, but it's much harder to see the ones that will be created. When automobiles came on the scene, it was easy to see that saddlemakers' jobs would disappear. But it wasn't obvious that the saddlemaker's skills could be used to make car seats and that higher-productivity auto production would create many more and much higher-paying jobs. Ten years ago, if I had said something called TikTok would arrive soon, no one would likely have been able to imagine that, or that social media would create what is now an established occupation—influencer.

The pattern appears to be repeating—only faster. A recent study by Stanford economists found that employment has fallen about 13 percent in occupations most exposed to AI, relative to those less affected. Those contractions have appeared mainly in support and administrative roles—fields that tend to be automated first. This early effect from AI is consistent with what I have been hearing from business contacts. Retailers in particular are cutting back on employment for call centers and IT-related occupations. So far, most say this is being handled through attrition, but a number of retailers say that there is the potential for downsizing next year. That is also a message from a New York Fed survey that finds very few businesses are reporting AI-induced layoffs; they are instead using the technology to retrain employees. That said, AI is influencing recruiting for these firms, with some scaling back hiring because of AI and others adding workers who are proficient in its use. Looking ahead, however, layoffs and reductions in hiring plans due to AI use are expected to increase, especially for workers with a college degree.

Returning to my final point, history has shown us that technology improves productivity and our standard of living. We initially always talk about how it will be a substitute for labor. This was the basic premise behind Marx's theory of capitalism—machines would replace humans in production, which would raise unemployment so high that social revolution would occur, leading to the end of capitalism and the rise of a socialist utopia. Yet this theory makes the fundamental mistake of failing to see that capital and labor are complements, not substitutes. More machines mean a firm can produce more output, but that also requires more labor as well. This is obvious just looking at economic data. The U.S. capital stock, measured in constant prices, is seven times larger than it was in 1950. Yet the unemployment rate in September 1950 was 4.4 percent, and it is 4.3 percent as of August 2025. This is why economists are typically techno-optimists—history has repeatedly shown that adopting new technologies leads to economic growth and greater employment, not less. Technological disruption is one form of a concept that economists have studied since Joseph Schumpeter named it in 1942: creative destruction. This topic has never been more relevant, and I note that just last week a share of the Nobel Prize in Economics was awarded to two economists who explored how productivity-enhancing disruption raises living standards

There will surely be losers and winners from AI, but aside from questions about how AI's gains will be distributed, there is the more fundamental matter of how they will be measured, even at a macro level. Firms are using AI to increase productivity, which allows for greater output based on the same level of inputs. This gain is counted in gross domestic product (GDP) and its corollary, gross national income.

In America, one common feature of great technological innovations has been an onslaught of competition that has rapidly driven down costs and resulted in rapid and widespread adoption. If hardware and software innovation continue to drive down the cost of AI, then I see few barriers to its ongoing proliferation throughout the economy. That prospect, clearly, is driving the surge of AI investment we have seen. Will it continue? That will depend, in part, on whether AI delivers on the productivity increases that some believe it will bring.

Building on a recent Goldman report, the current adoption rate stands at roughly 9.2% economywide. Skeptics like Elliott Management have called this AI cycle "overhyped." 

However, a team of Morgan Stanley analysts recently told clients that "AI impacts may take longer to appear in economic data," with the first real signs not expected until "later this decade and into the next."

"While AI adoption may be faster than past technologies, we think it is still too early to see it in economic data, outside of business investment," Stephen Byrd told clients. 

What's evident is that the early signs of AI job displacement are underway. We've done the hard work to figure out this trend with more details found here:

• AI Will Lead To 300 Million Layoffs In The US And Europe

• 200,000 Wall Street Jobs At Risk As "Agentic" AI Becomes "Major Breakthrough"

• Goldman Identifies Next Industry AI Will Disrupt

• Here Are The Jobs That Will Be Displaced By AI

• Morgan Stanley: AI Adoption Rate To Outpace Past Tech Cycles, But Measurable Economic Impact May Not Arrive Until Late Decade

• Billions Spent On Data Centers - But Where Is The AI Adoption Rate?

Fund UBI stimmies with tariffs? 

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 17:20

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Homeland Security on September 3, 2025

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on September 10, 2025

How Trump Crushed The Left's Media Machine

Submitted By Thomas Kolbe

Donald Trump is the master of memes — and of the media. No modern political figure understands better how to energize the long-humiliated conservative-patriotic soul that has been crushed for decades by a left-liberal media zeitgeist. His Gaza performance is the latest chapter in the ongoing media revolution of our time.

Peace in Gaza. The guns have fallen silent between Israel Defense Forces and Hamas. What was unthinkable for decades has happened: a historic breakthrough. Hostage and POW exchanges — all brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The achievement alone commands extraordinary respect. But with Trump now mediating in Armenia-Azerbaijan, between Israel and Iran, and pressing ahead with unfinished work in Ukraine, a Nobel Peace Prize would seem almost inevitable.

And Trump, ever the media virtuoso, translated this geopolitical power move into the perfect, iconic imagery.

Trump Plays the Media Like a Grand Piano

Whether delivering his address in the Knesset or receiving European leaders and global political elites, the spectacle was unmistakable: a parade of dignitaries bowing before the American president — a display directed not just at European audiences but at the power brokers of the Arab world as well.

The scene recalled the now-famous White House moment during the Ukraine debate: Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Keir Starmer, and Emmanuel Macron lined up like schoolboys at the teacher’s desk, listening to the president.

The moment culminated in Trump’s demonstrative handshake with Macron — a symbol of Europe’s complete submission to Washington’s dominant player.

Total Dominance

The world witnessed it in real time: Trump controls the iconography of power like no one else. He projects himself as the new ordering force in the Middle East, backed by allies like Saudi Arabia, now tied to Washington through billions in investment. Traveling aboard Air Force One between Washington, Tel Aviv, and Sharm el-Sheikh, he turned diplomacy into a livestream event.

Europe, once the colonial power in the region, was reduced to a spectator role. Even the congratulatory statements from European heads of state looked awkward against Trump’s monologue. His media strategy leaves no room for co-stars. This is a one-man show. And Trump plays the lead.

A Masterclass in Iconography

The list of Trump’s choreographed power moves is long. Remember the handshake with von der Leyen sealing the U.S.-EU trade deal? It was all about the image.

He hosted his European counterparts at his private golf resort in Scotland, flying them in via his personal helicopter — no military escort. Everything followed a scripted, perfectly timed playbook. The message: America is back on top.

Europe, dimmed to its real geopolitical size, played second fiddle. The era of European globalism sneaking through the American back door — via forums like World Economic Forum — is over. So is the age of U.S. presidents pushing the European climate agenda, from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama to Joe Biden. Trump is burying the CO₂ climate cult in America once and for all.

The Second Declaration of Independence

Repeatedly, the same image played out: in the Oval Office, Trump signs executive order after executive order, driving his cabinet to implement a deregulation blitz — a second Declaration of Independence from the Old Continent.

Another media bombshell followed on April 2: in the Rose Garden, Trump declared a global tariff war. Through a few bold, poster-sized charts, he ended an era: the era of free riding on the dollar system was over.

Two days after the last London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) contract expired, the pricing of dollar credit returned to Washington’s control via the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR).

Beyond Symbolism

Most Europeans still don’t grasp the signal: the U.S. will no longer let itself be hitched to Europe’s geopolitical cart — certainly not to die on European battlefields again. Not in a war with Russia that isn’t in America’s strategic interest.

The Trump-Putin media plot in Alaska made that message unmistakable.

Trump’s power lies in his ability to dominate narratives, shape symbolic language, and project an unapologetic American patriotism. Europe’s reaction is defensive: through Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, planned chat controls and digital IDs, Brussels tries to claw back control of the narrative by brute bureaucratic force. But against Washington’s renewed self-confidence and civic model, the Eurocrats look like yesterday’s men.

The Butler Moment

The turning point came in Butler, Pennsylvania: after the assassination attempt, Trump, bloodied and defiant, raised his fist and shouted “Fight! Fight! Fight!” in front of the American flag. That image burned itself into the national psyche. It was a declaration of war against cultural Marxism — the ideological core of Europe’s eco-socialist movement.

Trump had cracked the media code long before that. From flipping burgers at McDonald's to posing as a garbage truck driver — it wasn’t cheap campaign theater. It was strategic authenticity, in stark contrast to the aloof eco-socialist bureaucrats.

The result: attention shifted to him, away from choreographed smear campaigns and the concealed frailty of Biden. Trump didn’t fake being “the people.” He embodied it — and weaponized authenticity into power.

Dismantling the Machine

After his election, Trump moved fast to dismantle the left’s media machine. The breakup of United States Agency for International Development was a key moment. State-aligned broadcasters folded, funding pipelines to statist media, green ideology, and eco-socialist activism dried up.

Trump struck a chord with the times. He transformed media dominance and narrative instinct into electoral power. His biggest coup? Killing the CO₂ myth. In Trump’s America, CO₂ is no longer the demon gas upon which an eco-socialist nightmare could be built.

The question now is: How long before this media collapse of the Left reaches Europe? When it does, the rising conservative forces in Eastern Europe — led by Viktor Orbán — may find their historic hour has come.

In politics, good governance alone is never enough. You must project it — with the right imagery, in tune with the zeitgeist.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, born in 1978 in Neuss/ Germany, is a graduate economist. For over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 16:20

Wishful Thinking? MSM Speculates Trump To Announce Tomahawks For Ukraine Friday

The Financial Times as well as some pro-NATO military analysts say that we should expect President Trump to greenlight a limited number of long-range Tomahawk missiles for Ukraine. "The US president is expected to discuss potential deliveries and how Ukraine would use the weapon with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House on Friday," FT writes.

But it's all still up in the air (and Trump remains notoriously hard to predict), given Presidents Trump and Putin just had a "lengthy" and "positive and productive" phone call on Thursday, wherein the two lined up a series of high-level summits, including the expectation that Trump and Putin will have an eventual bilateral summit in Budapest to bring this “inglorious” War, between Russia and Ukraine, to an end - as Trump put it in a Truth Social post.

US Navy image

Among many troubling aspects to this is that the systems would likely require American contractors to operate. Typically Tomahawks are launched by sea or air, but Ukraine will have to be given a ground-launched version.

Mainstream media has of late also confirmed Trump had already authorized US intelligence to help the Ukrainians with targeting energy sites deep inside Russia.

Whatever is handed over, which is unlikely to surpass several dozens, would have to be carefully used against "strategic targets":

It is unclear how many Tomahawks the US would be willing to sell to Nato allies for Ukraine, especially since the Pentagon has been expending them at a higher rate than it has been buying them. "That’s what they’re probably arguing over right now within the Pentagon," said Jim Townsend, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defence.

The US has bought only 202 Tomahawks since 2022, but has used at least 124 against the Houthis and Iran since 2024. It is also possible the US would use Tomahawks in any strike on Venezuelan soil. “If we do give Tomahawks, it won’t be a huge batch, and that means that Zelenskyy will have to be very careful in terms of how he uses these,” Townsend said, adding they would only be used on the most strategic targets with the greatest chance of success.

Already anticipating this, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has newly warned that Ukraine is plotting to use the long-range missiles to carry out "terrorist attacks" on Russia.

Zakharova said to reporters Wednesday that "the Kiev regime is not hiding its preparation of new terrorist attacks against our country aimed at escalating the conflict" - further underscoring that it was "obvious" these plans are being drawn up in anticipation of getting Tomahawks.

Source: Institute for the Study of War (ISW)

Alex Christoforou of The Duran podcast, commenting on the implications of Tomahawk transfers, offers the following perspective:

1. Further normalizes US/NATO direct attacks into Russia. In three years the US has accomplished what was seen as taboo for 80 years...it is acceptable for US to directly strike Russia. This is a precedent that will be leveraged in the future.

2. Further normalizes western boots on the ground in Ukraine. The US is making no secret of the fact that they will be in Ukraine operating the missiles. US/NATO boots on the ground are no longer off limits.

FT: The missiles could be delivered relatively quickly with the involvement of American contractors to assist in their use. This would eliminate the need for extensive training of Ukrainian troops and would allow the US to maintain control over targets and other issues.

Russia will likely respond "with irresponsible rhetoric that includes some nuclear saber-rattling," as well as "a few larger strikes" on Ukraine.

At the very least, this will inject a new level of unpredictability into a conflict which is already spiraling toward direct NATO-Russia nuclear-armed confrontation.

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 15:45

Regional Banks Crash As More Credit "Cockroaches" Emerge

Just when the market was starting to finally freak out - with a one month delay - about the Tricolor and First Brands bankruptcy following yesterday's fingerpointing session between JPM's Jamie Dimon and various private credit firms in which both accused each other of harboring more credit "cockroaches", this morning the credit freak out went to 11 as two regional US banks crashed after they both disclosed problems with loans involving allegations of fraud (completely unrelated to Tricolor or First Brands), adding to concern that more cockroaches are indeed emerging in borrowers’ creditworthiness.

While those hits can be easily absorbed by the biggest US banks, the totals are more worrisome for regional lenders.

“If JPMorgan has a loan problem with Tricolor, it’s puny,” Mike Mayo, an analyst at Wells Fargo & Co., said in an interview.

“But if smaller banks have problems with these loans, it takes more of a hit.”

Shares of Zions Bancorp plunged 12% after it disclosed a $50 million charge-off for a loan underwritten by its wholly-owned subsidiary, California Bank & Trust, in San Diego.

Bloomberg reports that Zions said in a lawsuit that California Bank & Trust is owed the money from two investment funds tied to Andrew Stupin and Gerald Marcil, among other parties.

California Bank & Trust provided two revolving credit facilities to the borrowers in 2016 and 2017 totaling more than $60 million, to finance their purchase of distressed commercial mortgage loans, according to the lawsuit.

The terms gave the bank “first-priority, perfected security interest” in all collateral, including each mortgage loan purchased by the investment funds.

But after an investigation, the lender found that many of the notes and underlying properties were transferred to other entities.

And those properties have already been foreclosed on or were about to be, according to the lawsuit.

But it gets worse as Bloomberg points out that Western Alliance also lent money to the same investor group, for them to originate or buy mortgage loans, according to the bank’s lawsuit in August. The outstanding balance of that loan is $98.6 million.

Western Alliance found that the collateral was supposed to be backed by a first-priority lien, but that wasn’t the case.

It alleged that the borrower created fake title policies by omitting the senior liens.

At the same time, the borrower drained funds from accounts that acted as additional collateral, according to the lawsuit.

As of Aug. 18, the borrower held a little over $1,000 in their bank account at Western Alliance, while the required monthly average was $2 million, according to the lawsuit.

If that wasn't enough, Western Alliance also said it also has exposure to the collapse of auto-parts supplier First Brands Group.

But, and clearly nobody believed this, it doesn’t expect the issue to change its 2025 outlook. Yeah right... 

Shares tumbled as much as 11% after the admission...

It will be ironic if WAL barely survived the 2023 banking crisis only to be destroyed because it failed to do due diligence on its clients a few years later.

“There have been a number of ‘one-off’ credit events that a number of banks have previewed going into the quarter,” Terry McEvoy, an analyst at Stephens Inc., said in an interview.

“They have not gone unnoticed by bank investors.”

The news slammed the broader regional index. 

As Bloomberg notes, even if each of the credit event are isolated, banks taking losses from bad loans are making headlines more often in the past two months. After the bankruptcy of sub-prime auto lender Tricolor Holdings last month, JPMorgan wrote down $170 million and Fifth Third Bancorp wrote down as much as $200 million. 

Meanwhile, the investment bank at the center of the entire First Brands saga, Jefferies, continues to get crushed, and at last check was down over 10%.

 

*  *  * NICE AND EASY

Astaxanthin // Peak Focus // Mushroom 10x

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 15:35

Sixth Circuit Rules In Favor Of School Ban On "Let's Go Brandon" Sweatshirts

Authored by Joanthan Turley,

We previously discussed the case of B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools, where two middle schoolers in Michigan were prevented from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. However, a divided panel on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has ruled that the school district was within its authority to ban the sweatshirts.  The decision, in my view, is wrong, and this could prove a viable case for Supreme Court review, assuming that the plaintiffs will not seek an en banc review.

“Let’s Go Brandon!” has become a similarly unintended political battle cry not just against Biden but also against the bias of the media. It derives from an Oct. 2 interview with race-car driver Brandon Brown after he won his first NASCAR Xfinity Series race. During the interview, NBC reporter Kelli Stavast’s questions were drowned out by loud and clear chants of “F*** Joe Biden.” Stavast quickly and inexplicably declared, “You can hear the chants from the crowd, ‘Let’s go, Brandon!’”

“Let’s Go Brandon!” instantly became a type of “Yankee Doodling” of the political and media establishment.

In this case, an assistant principal (Andrew Buikema) and a teacher (Wendy Bradford) “ordered the boys to remove the sweatshirts” for allegedly breaking the school dress code. However, other students were allowed to don political apparel with other political causes, including “gay-pride-themed hoodies.”

The district dress code states the following:

“Students and parents have the right to determine a student’s dress, except when the school administration determines a student’s dress is in conflict with state policy, is a danger to the students’ health and safety, is obscene, is disruptive to the teaching and/or learning environment by calling undue attention to oneself. The dress code may be enforced by any staff member.”

The district reserves the right to bar any clothing “with messages or illustrations that are lewd, indecent, vulgar, or profane, or that advertise any product or service not permitted by law to minors.”

The funny thing about this action is that the slogan is not profane.

To the contrary, it substitutes non-profane words for profane words. Nevertheless, “D.A.” was stopped in the hall by Buikema and told that his “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirt was equivalent to “the f–word.”

Sixth Circuit Judge John Nalbandian was joined by Judge Karen Nelson Moore in holding that, under the “vulgarity exception,” the action was constitutional:

“The Constitution doesn’t hamstring school administrators when they are trying to limit profanity and vulgarity in the classroom during school hours. Again, students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” But neither are school administrators powerless to prevent student speech that the administrators reasonably understand to be profane or vulgar. And so “the First Amendment gives a … student the classroom right to wear Tinker’s armband, but not Cohen’s jacket.” Schools are charged with teaching students the “fundamental values necessary to the maintenance of a democratic political system.” And avoiding “vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse” is one such value. After all, “[e]ven the most heated political discourse in a democratic society requires consideration for the personal sensibilities of the other participants and audiences.” …

[A] euphemism is not the same as the explicitly vulgar or profane word it replaces. “Heck” is not literally the same word as “Hell.” But the word’s communicative content is the same even if the speaker takes some steps to obscure the offensive word. The plaintiffs concede that a school could prohibit students from saying “Fuck Joe Biden” because “[k]ids can’t say ‘fuck’ at school.” And yet they insist that the euphemism “Let’s Go Brandon” is distinct—even though many people understand that slogan to mean “Fuck Joe Biden.” So it’s not clear that the school administrators acted unreasonably in determining that the euphemism still conveyed that vulgar message.

After all, Fraser—the first case that recognized the vulgarity exception—involved a school assembly speech that had a rather elaborate sexual metaphor instead of explicitly vulgar or obscene words. And yet the Supreme Court had no reservation in holding that the school was not required to tolerate “lewd, indecent, or offensive speech and conduct.” And it was up to the school to determine “what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate.” Because “[t]he pervasive sexual innuendo in Fraser’s speech was plainly offensive to both teachers and students—indeed to any mature person,” the school could discipline his speech despite the absence of explicitly obscene or vulgar words. And so Fraser demonstrates that a school may regulate speech that conveys an obscene or vulgar message even when the words used are not themselves obscene or vulgar.”

In fairness to the majority, courts have been highly deferential to school officials in these areas, particularly in the Sixth Circuit. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court famously declared that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” That may be true, but apparently, they can shed their sweatshirts in Michigan.

Judge John Bush offered a spirited dissent, stating:

“[T]he speech here—”Let’s Go Brandon!”—is neither vulgar nor profane on its face, and therefore does not fall into [the Fraser] exception. To the contrary, the phrase is purely political speech. It criticizes a political official—the type of expression that sits “at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect.” No doubt, its euphemistic meaning was offensive to some, particularly those who supported President Biden. But offensive political speech is allowed in school, so long as it does not cause disruption under Tinker. As explained below, Tinker is the standard our circuit applied to cases involving Confederate flag T-shirts and a hat depicting an AR-15 rifle—depictions arguably more offensive than “Let’s Go Brandon!” …

The majority says the sweatshirts’ slogan is crude. But neither the phrase itself nor any word in it has ever been bleeped on television, radio, or other media. Not one of the “seven words you can never say on television” appears in it . Instead, the phrase has been used to advance political arguments, primarily in opposition to President Biden’s policies and secondarily to complain about the way liberal-biased media treats conservatives. It serves as a coded critique—a sarcastic catchphrase meant to express frustration, resentment, and discontent with political opponents. The phrase has been used by members of Congress during debate. And even President Biden himself, attempting to deflect criticism, “agreed” with the phrase.

We cannot lose sight of a key fact: the students’ sweatshirts do not say “F*ck Joe Biden.” Instead, they bear a sanitized phrase made famous by sports reporter Kelli Stavast while interviewing NASCAR race winner Brandon Brown at the Talladega Superspeedway. The reporter said the crowd behind them was yelling “Let’s go, Brandon!” She did not report the vulgar phrase that was actually being chanted. The Majority even concedes Stavast may have used the sanitized phrase to “put a fig leaf over the chant’s vulgarity.” That is telling….”

Judge Bush is correct. The opinion constitutes a significant infringement on the free speech rights of students. I readily admit that I am critical of some past cases, including Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007), where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Juneau-Douglas High School could suspend student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a banner reading “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS” across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. In my view, the courts have honored Tinker largely in the breach in such cases.

This case, however, involves a sweatshirt without a single vulgar term and a clear political message. It reflects a difference in the default position of both sides. The default in close cases for the majority is with the school’s authority to curtail speech, while the default of Judge Bush is with free speech. As Judge Bush noted:

“Because even offensive political speech demands First Amendment protection, it is inappropriate to delegate unfettered discretion to school officials to characterize the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon!” as vulgar and then regulate it outside the bounds of Tinker. The majority essentially gives school administrators boundless discretion—akin to “I know it when I see it,” Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 197 (1964) (Stewart, J., concurring)—to redefine facially non-vulgar speech as vulgarity in order to ban it.”

The plaintiffs should appeal this opinion. They have a strong dissent from Judge Bush and a strong free speech case to make either to the full court or the Supreme Court.

Here is the opinion: B.A. v. Tri County Area Schools

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Thu, 10/16/2025 - 15:25