Crooked Bough News Round-up

— Marxist-Maxxing: Hasan Piker Calls For "Literal Communist Revolution" Inside Dem Party

 

at 9/23/26 7:20pm

Marxist-Maxxing: Hasan Piker Calls For "Literal Communist Revolution" Inside Dem Party The Democratic Socialists of America's unofficial cheerleader, far-left streamer Hasan Piker, has stated an inconvenient truth for the Democratic Party: its far-left fringe will eat the party alive, quite literally. Listen to Piker in his own words: "I will throw you in prison. I want Chinese-style communism to happen inside of the Democratic Party right now. I want to do cultural revolution shit." Anti-communist Spencer Pratt, who really should be the anti-communist czar for the Trump administration if Trump's team sets up a messaging task force, wrote on X, "Hamas Piker just flat out admits he wants to imprison and kill Democrats in a literal communist revolution. These are animals." "I will throw you in prison. I want Chinese style communism to happen inside of the democratic party right now. I want to do cultural revolution shit." Hamas Piker just flat out admits he wants to imprison and kill democrats in a literal communist revolution. These are animals. pic.twitter.com/izogonoalg — Spencer Pratt (@spencerpratt) September 23, 2026 Fox News reports that a majority of registered voters view the DSA unfavorably, as Republicans have unleashed an information operation to outline to voters that this far-left group - really reformist socialists - in fact, are hellbent on demolishing the nation from within.  The beauty of the GOP's messaging is that DSA leaders state their destructive intentions in their own words.  The national survey found 55% held an unfavorable opinion of the DSA, compared with 30% who viewed it favorably. Another 13% had never heard of the DSA, a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. The findings were little changed from July, when favorable and unfavorable views stood at 31% and 56%, respectively. One major problem for Democrats is that they can't disband the DSA and start a civil war within the party before the midterms, as was shown by Democratic Party leaders using talking points that describe their party as a "big tent party."  Related:  192 House Democrats Refuse To Condemn Socialism As Party Scrambles To Avert DSA Civil War DSA is far-left: On Tuesday, at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, President Trump said that Cuba spent decades coordinating activities with far-left revolutionaries and subversion networks in the U.S. Trump said the State Department has worked to uncover Havana's ties to subversive and radical groups such as the Communist Party USA, Antifa, and the DSA. .@POTUS: The Cuban regime has also spent decades coordinating with left-wing radicals and Communist networks here in the United States. As our State Department has detailed, they have cultivated ties to subversive and radical groups such as the Communist Party USA, Antifa, and… pic.twitter.com/Bopz3W6sXz — Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 22, 2026 Hasan's comments offer what can only be seen as a preview of what awaits Democratic Party leaders when they try to disband their radicals. It won't be pretty. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 21:20

— Harvey Weinstein (Finally) Sentenced To 15 Years In Prison

 

at 9/23/26 6:55pm

Harvey Weinstein (Finally) Sentenced To 15 Years In Prison Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times, Disgraced film producer Harvey Weinstein has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for a 2006 sex crime. The Sept. 23 sentencing was for the sexual assault of then-TV production assistant Miriam Haley, and comes after Weinstein's 2020 conviction was overturned. A jury found Weinstein guilty at last year's retrial. In 2024, Weinstein's conviction for this same crime, which was handed down in 2020, was erased due to a judge's determination that the jury had heard testimony that should not have been admitted. The judge ruled that the now-convicted assailant was denied a fair trial due to the admission of testimony from women whose allegations weren't a part of the Haley case. The 74-year-old faced up to 25 years in prison for the assault of Haley, and he has already served six years. Haley testified about the 2006 assault, which took place at Weinstein's Manhattan apartment, three times: at two trials and again in court just before the sentencing. The former Hollywood insider has been embroiled in legal troubles for almost 10 years, starting in 2017, and has been a centerpiece in the cultural #MeToo movement that prompted victims to speak out about sexual assault. Once a powerful figure in the entertainment industry and a major political donor, Weinstein took part in the production of award-winning movies such as "Shakespeare in Love," "Pulp Fiction," and "Chocolat." Weinstein has been accused by more than 100 women of sexual assault, misconduct, and harassment. He has denied the charges. Among his accusers are Hollywood actresses and others in the film industry. The producer and one-time influential political donor was found guilty of sexual assault while simultaneously being acquitted of a rape charge from 2013. Weinstein, who cofounded the Miramax studio, was initially convicted of rape and sexual assault in 2020 and sentenced to 23 years in prison. Two years later, he was also convicted of raping and sexually assaulting an Italian actress in 2013, for which he was sentenced to 16 years. The second sentencing, which took place in California, required that he serve that term separately from the New York sentence. While in jail, Weinstein was treated for a type of slow-growing blood cancer - chronic myeloid leukemia - as well as heart issues, diabetes, and other issues. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:55

— Zelensky To UN: Russia's Deficit 'Bigger Than Any Other Year' - More Sanctions Needed

 

at 9/23/26 6:30pm

Zelensky To UN: Russia's Deficit 'Bigger Than Any Other Year' - More Sanctions Needed Among the more interesting parts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's speech before the UN General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon was when he lashed out at North Korea. Zelensky said while issuing leveling a litany of charges against Russia for its war that "The leader of North Korea sent his troops to Russia to support the weak points of the Russian army." via Associated PressHe questioned why a faraway southeast Asian country would be so willing to sacrifice its troops for a Russian endeavor.  Zelensky said: "You probably saw the broadcast from Pyongyang when they honored those who were killed. And this is madness, too. Why should Koreans give their lives in a war against Ukraine?" He further accused Kim Jong Un of using his own citizens "like currency" in return for "improved ballistic missiles and Pyongyang’s much [upgraded] drone capabilities." Likely these barbs will only cause Kim's regime to double down, and keep up its military support to Moscow. By some estimates, hundreds or possibly even thousands of DPRK troops have died so far in the Ukraine conflict. Pyongyang and Moscow have increasingly openly acknowledged the deaths, with North Korea even having held patriotic state funerals for slain troops. Elsewhere in the address, Zelensky sought to portray his country as essentially 'winning' the war, claiming immense but unverifiable Russian losses on the battlefield, also while Ukraine's long-range drones unleash destruction on Russian energy infrastructure.  Zelensky: Just this year, from January through August, the Russian army lost 248,964 people on the battlefield in Ukraine. pic.twitter.com/luHxIwp2Au — Clash Report (@clashreport) September 23, 2026 Concerning the energy war, Zelensky went on to assert that "Oil itself is not Ukraine’s target, not our target, not gasoline or diesel, not factories or ports … Our target is Russia’s ability to finance this war, to drag it out, to make it more brutal and more destructive." "Russia's finances and Russia's production are what must be stopped if Putin is to be stopped," Zelensky added. On this front, he presented Ukraine's risky long-range strikes as victorious. But he has also this week expressed willingness to agree to a joint energy ceasefire. On sanctions, he pointed to Russia's budget deficit as now being "bigger than in any other year" - claiming that "Russia planned major operations on the front this summer; all of them failed." Zelenskyy at the UN: "Ukrainians understand that this winter could be very harsh for us, but in response we will have no choice but to make it harsh for Russia too" pic.twitter.com/xAOZvFgRro — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 23, 2026 Zelensky also used the speech to try and rally Western countries to not grow weak on punishing Russia and keeping its global isolation in place. “Something always seems to stop Putin from saying, ‘That’s it. Enough, Peace,’” Zelensky said. “Can you even imagine him without war? He is ‘Patient Zero’, the one from whom war keeps spreading further. ... ‘Patient Zero’ must be stopped.” He said Russian assets must "remain a target," arguing that "when someone in the world weakens sanctions, weakens sanctions against Russian oligarchs, it may make life more comfortable for rich Russians, but it also gives Putin more time, to send his people into the kill zones." Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:30

— The Sudden AI Panic Has A Lot To Do With The November Midterms

 

at 9/23/26 6:05pm

The Sudden AI Panic Has A Lot To Do With The November Midterms Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via The Daily Signal, We're about 40 days, close to 40 days, out of the midterm, and all of a sudden there's been a melodramatic announcement that artificial intelligence could destroy the human race. I think everybody's always accepted that remote possibility, and it's been very popular in popular culture, such as "The Terminator" series. But why did all of a sudden we hear about it now? And the answer is Jason Coxon, a minor figure that had worked in major AI companies, suddenly quit, and he announced that even the CEOs of those companies were worried that they were creating things that they couldn't control, and that artificial intelligence would, on its own, be able to outthink humans and perhaps control the world, etc. In "The End of Everything," a book I mentioned, a theoretical experiment by the Pentagon, a computer simulation in which a missile was programmed to do anything that it could to protect itself to complete the mission. And when one of the programmers pushed the kill button, the missile turned on the computer screen. It wasn't a real missile, but the simulated missile turned and went back at the person who pushed the button. So, we've always known that that risk was there, but why was it so exaggerated right now? These CEOs, it was very interesting. If they're so worried about the direction of research, why don't they do two things? Why don't they patrol, control, audit their own people? It's almost like saying, "I'm afraid that I'll commit arson." And if you're afraid you'll commit arson, then why don't you take fuel away from that person or don't ever touch gasoline? If you're afraid that your company will make something that will destroy mankind, then don't do it. But if you say, "I still can't control it," then why are you opposing liability, legislation that says the makers of AI, should that AI product be used and be used to hurt people, they're not liable? You would say, "What? Just make us liable. That'll ensure that you can trust us because we might not trust ourselves." The other thing is they've called, and the Left has called, for international control. I'd like to say, if you look at the history of international control regulations, it's not good. The League of Nations, did that stop World War II? When Mussolini decided to go into East Africa, did they stop him from using the Suez Canal? Did they tell Japan, "You can't go into Manchuria," or to get out of China? Did they say to Hitler, "Don't go into the Sudetenland"? They did. Did it do any good? No. The Kellogg-Briand Pact, remember that? That was going to be a worldwide, by Sen. [Frank] Kellogg in the United States in the 1920s, a worldwide effort to outlaw war. How did that work out? Within a decade and a half, we were at war. How about the Washington Naval Treaty? That was a very inspired, idealistic idea after World War I: Let's stop the dreadnought race. Everybody will agree to make no destroyer, cruiser, battleship over a certain tonnage. Did Japan or Germany abide by the 35,000-ton limit on battleships? No. Did we? Yes. Did Britain? Yes. Did France? Yes. Did Mussolini? No. Did, as I said, Germany? No. Did Japan? In other words, consensual societies do abide by international treaties. Nonconsensual societies do not. How about the Versailles Treaty? Did that prevent another war? No. How about the Munich Agreement between Prime Minister [Neville] Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler? Did he abide by that when he said: This is my last territorial conquest in Europe? No. He invaded Europe about a year later. How about the recent Paris climate accord? Has that reduced Chinese carbon emissions? No. They're building two to three coal plants per month. How about the United Nations Human Rights Council? Has that stopped the slaughter of Christians in Africa? Did that stop the ethnic cleansing and killing of Armenians in Azerbaijan? No. So, international accords won't work. So, what is going on with all this melodrama? Why now? Why on the eve of an election? It's not new. Let's look at some of the end-of-days scares that we've had in the past. When I was younger, in 1968, there was the Nixon-Humphrey campaign, and all of a sudden Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford professor, said we're all going to be destroyed by overpopulation. He took the old Thomas Malthus worry in the 19th century of overpopulation. He wrote a bestseller called "The Population Bomb," and it said there's no way we can get enough fuel, food, precious metals ... to feed this growing billion-dollar, billion-person population bomb. We're doomed. And it had a lot of bad effects. People started just to have one child. In Europe, they took it very seriously. The idea was have one child, adopt one. And now Canada has a 1.25 fertility rate. Europe is about 1.33, the EU. It had disastrous consequences, and we now - we have more people on the planet than ever, and the per capita income of the world population is higher than when Paul Ehrlich wrote that book. In 1983, there was a nuclear winter. We were all scared. Carl Sagan, he was sort of like Paul Ehrlich, a professor. He was a cult figure. He said that we're gonna have a nuclear exchange, and when we do, the nuclear dust will blot out the sun, and we'll all die. That was in relationship to the Soviets. For a long time, they had short-range missiles threatening Europe. Ronald Reagan said that's not allowable, to bully Europe. We're gonna put Pershing II missiles to counteract your missiles. There were some standoffs, and all of a sudden - and what was gonna happen within a year? There was going to be the 1984 reelection effort of Reagan. So, all of a sudden, the Left said: Nuclear winter, nuclear winter, we're all gonna be doomed. Hollywood made a movie, "The Day After," showing mushrooms dotting the Kansas landscape. A hundred thousand people. It was just a complete hysteria. Then we had climate change, or rather global warming went to climate change. In 1992, who wrote "Earth in the Balance"? Candidate Al Gore during that election cycle. What was his thesis? Well, there was global warming we were worried about, but he was saying that heat is a pollutant. Everybody's dangerous or deadly as industrial waste or ozone or whatever. And he said we have only a decade or a decade and a half, and the polar bears are going to die. The coral reefs off Australia are going to erode. Icebergs are going to melt in the Antarctic, and the Arctic Ocean is going to be too warm, and we're going to have difficulty navigating these icebergs. The endless - you couldn't get a place on the ocean. Barack Obama's house in Hawaii, built, I guess, apparently, will be inundated. And then it didn't happen. Didn't happen. But Al Gore and [Bill] Clinton were elected. In 2016, remember "Me Too"? Harvey Weinstein was using the old casting couch of Hollywood producers to coerce sex from actresses so they could get a role. It started out legitimately, as did climate change worries, as did nuclear bomb worries, as did AI worries. But that didn't last long. All of a sudden, careers as varied as Garrison Keillor, Brett Kavanaugh, Al Franken, the senator, everybody, if they did anything in their past, stole a kiss, patted someone too long, hugged somebody, half the country was worried over the last 30 years had they said an off-color joke. There was a climate of paranoia. And it was right during the what? The 2016 election. And who promulgated it? We'll get to that in a minute. And then it died. Why did it die pretty soon? Because Joe Biden in 2019-20 was a candidate, and he was going to be the only viable candidate for the Left. They were terrified of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg is too far left. And Joe Biden was handsy, a euphemism for touching women, hugging them too long. One of them, Tara Reade, came forward and said she'd been sexually assaulted. And of course, Bill Clinton then earned renewed scrutiny. What did you actually do, Bill? And after you left office, we hear about the [Jeffrey] Epstein connection, we hear about women on your plane, and all of a sudden it disappeared, Me Too. Then I could go on with the COVID lockdown and the paranoia that ended up probably killing more people, destroying millions of lives economically, ruining education. I could go into the George Floyd paranoia after the death of George Floyd. Thirty-five killed, $2 billion in property damage, 1,500 police officers, five months of looting, arson, destruction. What do all these things have in common? Well, they're melodramas. They're psychodramas. All of a sudden, people take a legitimate issue and they start to use it to achieve a political aim. It's no accident that the AI hysteria is happening right before the election. And usually, in all of these cases - the Carl Sagan nuclear winter, the Al Gore climate change, the Paul Ehrlich population drama, the BLM ginned-up rioting after George Floyd, the opponents of Donald Trump who wanted to lock down the economy - they're usually used by the Left. And finally, let's be frank. When they're all over, Carl Sagan is a household name, and he's very wealthy. Paul Ehrlich is a household name, and he's very wealthy. Al Gore starts out as any politician, supposedly very poor. He's from an affluent family, and he's now a near-billionaire. And the BLM people who ginned up the George Floyd riots, they all retreated to plush homes, used those monies that were intended to be nonprofit funds for their own personal aggrandizement. In sum, when you see a sudden epidemic, a melodrama, a hysteria, just be very careful because the odds are it will be in an election year, it'll be ginned up by a so-called left-wing expert, and when it's all over, that left-wing expert will be pretty wealthy. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 20:05

— Check Your Freezer: Popular Pasta Sold Nationwide Recalled Over Deadly Bacteria Contamination Fears

 

at 9/23/26 5:40pm

Check Your Freezer: Popular Pasta Sold Nationwide Recalled Over Deadly Bacteria Contamination Fears Shoppers who picked up frozen pasta at Walmart recently may want to check their freezers as a popular store-brand dish has been pulled from shelves across the country over contamination concerns. Gias Foods has issued a nationwide recall of two lots of its bettergoods Authentic Italian Lemon Alfredo Fettuccine after testing revealed the product may carry Listeria monocytogenes, a bacteria capable of causing serious illness. The pasta was sold at Walmart locations from coast to coast, though so far no illnesses have been reported. The recalled product comes in a 22-ounce yellow plastic package with the UPC 194346442706, and customers can identify the affected lots by the codes L6079C or L6080C, along with expiration dates of 09/19/2027 or 09/20/2027 stamped on the back. The problem was first flagged not by federal regulators but by state inspectors, as routine sampling by agriculture officials in Washington State and Florida turned up the bacteria in finished products. In response, the company has stopped shipping the pasta while it works with the FDA to determine what went wrong. What makes Listeria especially alarming is how easily it goes unnoticed. Contaminated food can look, smell and taste perfectly normal while still causing severe and sometimes fatal infections. And because symptoms can take as long as 70 days to show up, anyone who ate the pasta should keep an eye on their health for weeks to come. Those symptoms include vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache and a stiff neck, and since they can resemble other illnesses, only specific lab tests can confirm an infection. Health officials urge anyone who ate the product and feels sick to seek medical care and tell their doctor about the possible exposure. The recall revives unwelcome memories for Walmart shoppers. Just last year, a Listeria outbreak linked to pasta meals from Nate's Fine Foods left at least six people dead and 25 hospitalized after the products reached Walmart, Kroger, Trader Joe's and other major retailers. * * * Looking for safe alternatives? Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 19:40

— Trump Social Media Firm Sues Ex-Co-Founder, Claims He Gambled Away Company Cash in Wild Slot Machine Spree

 

at 9/23/26 4:50pm

Trump Social Media Firm Sues Ex-Co-Founder, Claims He Gambled Away Company Cash in Wild Slot Machine Spree X Strategies, the Florida social media firm that powers some of President Donald Trump's most-followed social media accounts, is taking its former co-founder Derek Utley to federal court, accusing him of quietly draining at least $5 million from the company to fund a jet-set lifestyle and a staggering gambling habit, according to POLITICO. The company filed a 34-page complaint September 18 in U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach against Utley and his former girlfriend Anna Weisheimer. Co-founded by Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz, X Strategies runs the Trump War Room and Team Trump accounts on X and helps manage the president's TikTok presence. Utley, X Strategies' former chairman and chief financial officer, allegedly had exclusive control over the company's bank accounts after he and Trump adviser Alex Bruesewitz launched the firm in 2017. Starting in 2021, the complaint alleges, Utley began funneling company money into his personal life, splurging on sports cars, designer clothing, jewelry, and luxury condos. In 2025 alone, Utley spent a whopping 200 days at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino in Hollywood, Florida, dropping $29 million in company funds into slot machines, X Strategies alleges. Utley allegedly won back more than $26 million, but kept the winnings for himself while the company was left holding a $3 million loss. The filing further alleges Utley pulled cash from casino ATMs and told banks the withdrawals were for client entertainment. The alleged shortfall came to light after the firm brought on Michael Seifert, the former CEO of PublicSq, a marketplace that connects conservative consumers with small businesses, as X Strategies' president. Utley departed from the social media company in April and gave up his 50% ownership stake. The lawsuit brings civil RICO, theft, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims, and seeks damages that could be tripled. "I dispute these allegations in the complaint and will address them through the legal process," Utley told POLITICO. "I have no further comment at this time." Weisheimer, a social media influencer and Pilates instructor, also denied any wrongdoing. "I have absolutely nothing to do with the drama between Alex and Derek. I briefly dated Derek, during which time I asked him to purchase a Pilates studio for me. He ultimately decided not to, and our relationship ended shortly thereafter," Weisheimer told The Independent. "I have requested that I be removed from this lawsuit immediately, as I have no involvement in the issues between these two gentlemen."   Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:50

— Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier?

 

at 9/23/26 4:25pm

Second Shot At The Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone By An Errant Qualifier? Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org, Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court's October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons in out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins). A recent column from Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again. The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases. Here is the portion that I wanted to address: The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently. Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various "longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms" left undisturbed, part III said "we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ... the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time'" (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns). I add emphasis on "at the time," because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this "important limitation." As the solicitor general's brief notes, "the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956," and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the "most commonly owned rifle[] in America" today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use "at the time" the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Indeed, as the SG's brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general's Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s "are in common use" today (again, my emphasis). This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing "were" to "are") - an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh's 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011. Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say. As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller. Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote: "Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way...Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment "extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding." It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court). Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases. I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as "earth-shattering." I do not. I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in "changing 'were' to 'are.'" This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word "were." Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution." Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:25

— Beijing Moves Down The AI Stack: After GPUs, China Is Coming For Broadcom's Switches

 

at 9/23/26 4:00pm

Beijing Moves Down The AI Stack: After GPUs, China Is Coming For Broadcom's Switches Xi Jinping lands in Washington for a state visit today, but as Bloomberg sums up the mood in one line: the two leaders "may find common ground on AI safety, but neither is willing to give ground in the technology race." And right on schedule, the FT reports that Beijing has started counting Broadcom switches. According to the FT, China's State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC), which oversees the country's state-owned companies, has spent recent weeks surveying how much Broadcom switching gear is installed in state-controlled data centres. The count came back... high: "The survey found that the penetration rate of Broadcom switches among state-owned companies could be as high as 90 per cent, one of the people said." The exercise supports Beijing's "domestic chips for domestic use" campaign. The initial findings could lead SASAC to issue "informal guidance" telling state data centres to cut back on Broadcom. In Beijing, informal guidance tends to carry the weight of a formal order. Why switches, and why now Switches get little attention in the AI boom, but they decide whether 10,000 accelerators work together as one training cluster or sit around as 10,000 very expensive heaters. Broadcom's merchant Ethernet silicon dominates that layer worldwide. Nvidia and Huawei also sell high-end switches in China, but Nvidia is already barred from state-backed data centers. That leaves Broadcom as the last major American supplier embedded in China's state AI build-out. SASAC is also looking at how Broadcom sells, not just how much. Per the FT, the agency is checking whether Broadcom used its market lead to bundle products or require purchase commitments of up to tens of thousands of switch chips. Those terms allegedly limited how much H3C and Ruijie Networks could buy from other vendors such as Huawei. H3C and Ruijie are the preferred vendors on the procurement lists behind billions of dollars in annual public-sector IT spending. If that line of questioning sounds familiar, Beijing used the same approach last year when it found Nvidia had breached antimonopoly law over its Mellanox deal. Mellanox is, notably, a networking business. Two caveats from the FT story:  Private operators are exempt. ByteDance and Alibaba are not covered, so the rule doesn't reach the companies doing most of China's frontier training. Nothing gets ripped out. Existing gear stays in place. One rack-maker sales rep described the policy as "part of a broader policy to 'nationalise the supply chain'." In practice, that means a replacement cycle rather than a purge. The stakes for Broadcom According to its latest 10-K, 17% of Broadcom's FY2025 revenue (about $10.9bn of $63.9bn) came from shipments to China including Hong Kong. That was down from 20% a year earlier. Much of that figure is ship-to accounting for contract manufacturers assembling gear for non-Chinese customers, so true Chinese end-demand is smaller. AVGO rose about 0.5% on the headline, which suggests traders don't see much damage. Sure enough, while the near-term P&L hit is modest but the strategic cost is bigger: switching is set to become a multibillion-dollar market inside China, and it is being set aside for domestic suppliers. The bigger picture: Goldman's numbers on China's self-reliance push Goldman's recent research shows how quickly the domestic stack is filling in: The demand side is large. Goldman's desk points out that China's domestic AI chip market is "quietly gearing up for a staggering 69% compound annual growth rate through 2030." GS Research's CHIPS IV forecasts China semiconductor capex rising +13% / +15% / +15% in 2026–28, driven by memory and advanced-node capacity. The foundry is full. In the SMIC note (available to pro subs here), Allen Chang says SMIC grew revenue 20% QoQ in 2Q26. That was the fastest among the global top-10 foundries, whose aggregate growth was 11.5%. Chang attributes it to "China's strong AI demand and customers diversifying their suppliers to better secure capacity." Utilization is expected to stay above 95% through 2H26, new wafer pricing takes effect in 3Q26, and 54–71% of capex goes to 7nm and advanced nodes. Goldman expects no ASP declines because there's no spare capacity to discount. The private sector is localizing without being told to. In the Alibaba note after the Apsara conference (available here for pro subs), Golman analyst Ronald Keung forecasts capex of Rmb209bn / 243bn / 260bn for FY27–29E and a cloud power footprint of 20GW by 2032, supported by "unique cost advantages from its custom T-head silicon." Alibaba is exempt from the SASAC push, yet it is building its own chips anyway. Policy points the same way. Goldman chief China economist Hui Shan writes that policymakers are "focused on advanced manufacturing rather than broad-based easing." So while consumers deal with a housing slump, the fabs keep getting funded. Put Goldman's research next to the policy timeline and the pattern is clear: August 2025: New data centers told to source at least 50% of chips locally. September 2025: Big tech told to stop buying Nvidia's China-specific chips, and regulators issued the Mellanox antitrust finding. November 2025: State-funded data centers banned from using foreign AI accelerators (Reuters). June 2026: A reported ~2 trillion yuan ($295bn) national compute plan through 2028 with an 80% domestic-content target (TechTimes). September 2026: The survey of switches, one of the last foreign-made layers left. On the supply side, Huawei used last week's Huawei Connect to lay out an Ascend roadmap of the 960 in 2027, 970 in 2028 and 980 in 2029. It also showed an Atlas 960 SuperPoD that links 4,096 NPUs over its proprietary UnifiedBus interconnect, which means its networking is in-house too (Irish Times). DeepSeek reportedly plans to deploy at least 160,000 Ascend 950DTs. Huawei has raised 950DT prices by 60%, citing "tight component supply," which suggests pricing power is not an American monopoly either. The catch: domestic gear costs more to run Industry experts told the FT that Huawei's switches are less energy-efficient than Broadcom's, which means higher power bills for users. That matches Goldman's SMIC work: with utilization above 95% and no price cuts coming, "domestic" currently also means "capacity-constrained and not cheap." China's workaround is to build power generation faster than anyone else, which they've done this admirably. And unlike the US, China has the electrical capacity to build all of this. China has 4000GW of total power generation and growing 20%. The US is at 1200GW and flat (with PJM and ERCOT nearing capacity) https://t.co/mEwD3LzvXs pic.twitter.com/p0xFKqeEAB — zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 23, 2026 Bottom line Export controls were meant to keep China a generation or two behind in AI hardware. They did slow progress in places, but they also gave Beijing both a reason and the political cover to replace every layer of the stack: accelerators, foundry, memory, interconnect and now switches. Each layer runs slower and hotter than its US counterpart, but it is Chinese-made. The market Broadcom has lost is small this year and likely to shrink further. Goldman's 69% CAGR figure describes a market growing quickly, and US suppliers are increasingly shut out of it. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 18:00

— Missouri Congressional Map Returns To Supreme Court For Third Time

 

at 9/23/26 3:40pm

Missouri Congressional Map Returns To Supreme Court For Third Time Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times, The dispute over Missouri's new congressional map returned to the Supreme Court for the third time, with justices considering whether the state can use the GOP-backed map in the midterm elections. The new map could help Republicans gain an additional U.S. House seat in the Nov. 3 elections. The Supreme Court has twice prevented the state from using the redrawn congressional map, most recently on Sept. 10, when it granted the opponents' bid to stay a federal judge's order allowing the state to use the map in the midterm elections. People Not Politicians, the group opposing the redrawn congressional map, filed an emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22 after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that using the 2022 map in the Nov. 3 general elections would be unconstitutional, as the state had already used the redrawn 2025 map in the August 2026 primaries. In a Sept. 21 ruling, the Eighth Circuit ordered U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark to enter a permanent injunction barring Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins from using any congressional map other than the one the Legislature approved in 2025. The federal appeals court stayed its ruling until Sept. 28 to allow time for a Supreme Court review. Opponents asked the Supreme Court to block the ruling, saying it undermined the court's previous injunction blocking the use of the 2025 congressional map. "The Eighth Circuit's order does not merely undermine this court's stay order; it requires the district court to issue a permanent injunction granting the exact same relief this court stayed in the exact same case," the motion stated. The motion asks the Supreme Court to clarify that its Sept. 10 stay "precludes enforcement of the replacement injunction - or any additional federal court injunctions contrary to the stay order - so long as that stay remains in effect." Opponents also argued that the Eighth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to enter the ruling. "The Eighth Circuit cannot disrupt an imminent election after ballots have been cast by issuing relief that this court has already foreclosed and that it lacked jurisdiction to grant, all based on a merits theory of the panel's own invention," they said. The Supreme Court gave supporters of the new map until midday on Wednesday to respond to the latest appeal. The 2022 map, drawn by the General Assembly after the 2020 census, was designed to give Republicans a 6-2 edge. The 2025 map, drawn as part of a mid-decade redistricting, was designed to give them a 7-1 advantage. Missouri held primary elections on Aug. 4 using the 2025 Missouri First map approved by the Republican-controlled General Assembly. President Donald Trump supported the redrawn map. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:40

— Senate Panel Rejects Immunity For Ex-Fauci Aide

 

at 9/23/26 3:20pm

Senate Panel Rejects Immunity For Ex-Fauci Aide The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs rejected on Sept. 23 a bid to seek immunity for a longtime special assistant to Dr. Anthony Fauci. The vote on a resolution authorizing an application for a court order compelling testimony under immunity from the assistant, who was not identified, fell short of the required two-thirds of members. All eight Republicans, but no Democrats, voted in favor. Two Democrats would have had to cross the aisle for the resolution to be approved. Fauci, 85, headed the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022. He refused to answer questions before the panel earlier in the year, citing the Fifth Amendment, prompting the committee to refer him for contempt of Congress to federal prosecutors. The Department of Justice has not charged Fauci with any crimes. As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, the female assistant worked for Fauci from 2007 to 2022, according to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the committee's chairman. He said her position "placed her in the flow of communications directly relevant to our investigation" into Fauci. She recently appeared behind closed doors before the committee and invoked the Fifth Amendment, or her right against self-incrimination. The questions senators want answered primarily deal with the destruction of government records, Paul said. A doctor who was a longtime adviser to Fauci recently pleaded guilty to conspiring to delete government records. Fauci has directed subordinates to delete emails. Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), who voted against the resolution, said before the vote that senators should pursue a "good-faith bipartisan approach to obtain this information" rather than rush to approve the resolution. Republicans expressed frustration and anger that only Hassan among Democratic panel members was present during the meeting. "I come from the private sector. To not show up to a meeting, to say 'I refuse to do my job,' is something that only happens in politics," Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) said. "That is outrageous." After the vote, Paul said: "A majority of the committee voted to seek the truth. All Republicans voted to seek the truth. We voted to protect this witness and hear her story. All we needed was two Democrats who wanted to hear her story, but not a single one of them is interested in the investigation or the truth about destruction of federal records." Hassan said that was a mischaracterization of the Democrats' position. Paul said he would be sending a letter to the Department of Justice requesting pursuit of the matter, and said his committee's investigation into government record destruction will continue. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:20

— Trump Meets Venezuela's Rodriguez In New York

 

at 9/23/26 3:00pm

Trump Meets Venezuela's Rodriguez In New York Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times, President Donald Trump and Venezuela's interim President Delcy Rodriguez met Tuesday night on the sidelines of a United Nations reception, their first face-to-face talks since American forces seized then-President Nicolas Maduro in January. Venezuela's Interim President Delcy Rodriguez and U.S. President Donald Trump (R) meet on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 22, 2026. Venezuela Presidential Palace Handout via ReutersThe pull-aside was booked for 7:40 p.m. at a gathering Trump is hosting during the U.N. General Assembly. No joint appearance was planned nor a detailed agenda released. Participants in the pull-aside meeting with Rodriguez included State Secretary Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, and White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. "We held a historic meeting with the President of the United States, Donald Trump, during which we discussed strengthening the bilateral relationship between our countries and advancing a cooperation agenda in strategic areas such as energy, mining, security, and other matters of mutual interest," Rodriguez said in a statement on Telegram. "We expressed our gratitude to President Trump and his administration for the steadfast support provided during the emergency caused by the earthquakes of June 24, as well as for their backing of our country's reintegration into multilateral forums," she wrote, according to a translation. "Venezuela and the United States share a historic relationship that, in this new phase, we are called upon to steer through dialogue. We will continue to pursue a diplomacy that serves the national interest, aimed at achieving concrete results and collective benefits for the Venezuelan people." Rodriguez landed Monday for what is her first trip to the United States since taking office. She is scheduled to address the General Assembly on Wednesday afternoon. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz told reporters about the upcoming meeting on a call. "The president will host a U.N. General Assembly leaders' reception. There, he'll participate in a pull-aside with the acting president Rodriguez of Venezuela," Waltz said. He did not say what they would discuss. Trump spoke to the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, hours before the reception, where he called Maduro an "outlaw dictator," adding that hundreds of political prisoners had been freed since the capture. Trump pointed to the January raid as proof Washington would use its "unmatched military might" to protect its interests in the Western Hemisphere. "To the victor belong the spoils," he said, calling an oil deal his administration signed with Caracas last month "perhaps the biggest deal ever made." He has said he wants $100 billion in investment to flow into Venezuela's oil industry. On Sept. 16, Trump removed Venezuela from the U.S. list of countries that have failed to combat drug trafficking. The country had been on that list since 2005. "Given the positive steps taken under interim President Delcy Rodríguez, I have determined Venezuela should no longer be designated as having failed demonstrably to fulfill its drug control commitments," the presidential determination said. "I expect to see continued, measurable progress from the interim government in dismantling narcoterrorist groups and stopping drug trafficking through Venezuela to the United States." Last month the two governments signed an energy agreement covering 65 billion barrels of reserves. Trump called it in a Truth Social post "the biggest oil deal in world history." Rodriguez said the pact is meant to last 25 years and to develop 17 strategic oil fields with a production target of more than 1.5 million barrels a day. "This deal is a huge win for both the American and Venezuelan people," Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X. Rodriguez, 56, was born in Caracas and trained as a lawyer. Maduro named her vice president in 2018. U.S. forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on Jan. 3 and flew them to the United States on narcoterrorism and drug charges. Venezuela's high court then designated Rodriguez interim president. Maduro has pleaded not guilty. Reuters contributed to this report Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 17:00

— Iran Vows To 'Paralyze' Regional Airports Which Prevent Its Flights From Landing

 

at 9/23/26 2:40pm

Iran Vows To 'Paralyze' Regional Airports Which Prevent Its Flights From Landing Facing crippling US sanctions against its aviation sector as part of the Trump/Bessent Economic D-Day initiative, Iran is warning that if regional countries join the sanctions action, their own airports could be targeted. Iran's Supreme National Security Council has on Wednesday put neighboring states who are allies of Washington on notice. The statement warned their airports will be "paralyzed" if they cooperate with US attempts to prevent the landing of Iranian airliners.  Source: Government of KuwaitTreasury Secretary Scott Bessent declared on Monday that by Wednesday. Sept. 23, "all the Iranian airlines will be shut down around the world." He warned that any airports or companies providing fuel, landing, and ticketing for sanctioned Iranian entities risk dollar-system exclusion. Already Turkey has taken the dramatic action of canceling all flights in the foreseeable future for various Iranian carriers. According to more of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council statement, delivered via its chief, Mohsen Rezaei, "We ask all the countries of the region not to join America’s adventure. If they do not allow Iranian aircraft to travel, their own airports will not be able to have flights either." "You are our friends, but you should not join America’s ranks. You should prevent the war from spreading," he added. Throughout the prior seven months of war with the US, Iran has shown a willingness to target major civilian hubs, particularly in neighboring Kuwait. Iran is defiantly planning to press forward with its commercial airline operations. While some countries are complying with the US order, China is clearly not... An Iranian Mahan Air flight from Tehran landed in Guangzhou, China today, Sept. 23 as new U.S. aviation sanctions took effect, flight Radar shows. China is clearly not caring about US sanctions. pic.twitter.com/g990JZ4SLz — Open Source Intel (@Osint613) September 23, 2026 As for the heavily sanctioned Iranian aviation industry, in recent years the Islamic Republic has suffered some significant aerial disasters, which included the May 19, 2024 death of President Ebrahim Raisi. His military helicopter went down in a rugged, mountainous area of northwestern Iran. Some speculate that lack of airline parts and aging aircraft, due to the long-standing US targeting of the industry, has only served to increase the chances of aviation disasters. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 16:40

— Shareholders Sue New York Times Over 'Biased' Israel Coverage

 

at 9/23/26 2:20pm

Shareholders Sue New York Times Over 'Biased' Israel Coverage Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, Shareholders sued The New York Times on Sept. 23, alleging the company has failed to prevent false reporting about Israel and other topics. The State Board of Administration of Florida, representing the Florida Retirement System Trust Fund and National Center for Public Policy Research, filed the lawsuit in a New York court. "The Company's repeated publication of materially false or baseless factual assertions, many later admitted internally or disproven externally, supports a reasonable inference that the Board has not only failed in its obligation to monitor the Company's internal controls, but it has allowed such flagrantly selective application of the internal controls to support the conclusion that in the absence of any Board-level oversight, journalistic standards have been weaponized within the Company to serve the personal agendas of unchecked editors," the 48-page filing says. Shareholders said that a whistleblower reported problems to the company's internal channel for such issues in November 2023. "I feel that I'm on a desk that is particularly biased against Israel ... I can't tell if the Masthead does not see that our desk is biased, does not see it as a problem to be resolved, or just hasn't figured out how to get a handle on it," the whistleblower was quoted as saying. The person later presented 26 slides to a standards editor that described how the paper had rejected footage from a source because the source was "pro-Israel" and how a freelancer's praise of Hitler was downplayed as "just some jokes." The whistleblower's concerns, later expanded to include questions about the lack of a promised training on anti-Semitism, and the hiring of a freelancer who said he "supports the Palestinian struggle against occupation," did not prompt any changes, according to the filing. One incident outlined by shareholders was how The New York Times included a photograph of a child in its 2025 article, "Gazans Are Dying of Starvation," without disclosing that the child had pre-existing health conditions, as Getty Images had noted days prior in captions of pictures of the child. The paper later updated the photo's information and said that "after publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems." Evidence shows that controls the company promotes to the public, including standards review before content is published, are not working, as that and other incidents show, the lawsuit says. It requests the court order The New York Times to show shareholders materials they requested to see in August, including all versions of the paper's editorial standards since Jan. 1, 2020. "This lawsuit has no merit and was brought for an improper purpose," a spokesperson for the paper told The Epoch Times in an email. "Although it is positioned as a corporate governance petition to inspect the company's books and records, it is a transparent attempt to exert agenda-driven pressure against an independent media organization, level false allegations of bias and chill journalism protected by the First Amendment. We will defend against the suit vigorously." Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 16:20

— "The Danes Lied The Most": What's Really In The Text Of Trump's Landmark Deal With Greenland

 

at 9/23/26 1:40pm

"The Danes Lied The Most": What's Really In The Text Of Trump's Landmark Deal With Greenland Authored by John Weeks via AntiWar.com US To Establish Two New Military Bases In Greenland The United States plans to open two new military bases in Greenland, an expansion made possible by a new security agreement between the US, Denmark, and the semi-autonomous Danish territory of Greenland. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, and Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen signed the new security agreement during a trilateral ceremony at the United Nations General Assembly in New York. US Army imageThe "agreement," which amends a 1951 defense treaty, allows the US "to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig in accordance with modalities and technical details to be mutually agreed by the Parties," which is where the two new military bases will be created. Narsarsuaq hosted the US Bluie West One military base in the 1940s and 1950s. Mestersvig is a current military outpost used by the Danish special forces unit called Sirius Dog Sled Patrol. The agreement also allows the US to "modernize and expand its activities" at its existing Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, create additional military facilities on the island, and enjoy greater military access by land, air, and sea. It also bans non-NATO nations from establishing a military presence on Greenland and provides the U.S. with economic privileges (such as “minerals cooperation”) in the resource-rich island. During a speech to assembled world leaders at the UN before the trilateral ceremony, Trump spoke of the "unprecedented agreement regarding the northern frontier of North America, the large and strategically vital piece of land known as Greenland." This rhetoric tracked with Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s vow in March to establish a "Greater North America." However, the agreement does not have the US take over Greenland, as leaders on the island, in Denmark, and throughout Europe had feared earlier this year. Such fears were well placed, considering that the US conquered Venezuela in January, has been working toward regime change in Cuba, and is currently at war with Iran. What's in the actual Greenland deal text? Analysis in the following: "The Danes lied the most: Trump is pretty much correct in saying that this new deal grants the US control of Greenland"... Ok, we now have the actual text of the Greenland deal (https://t.co/HwqZT6CGb2), so we can say how it compares to the existing 1951 arrangement and who, between Trump and Denmark, lied the most in their framing of it. Long story short - which may surprise some - the Danes lied… https://t.co/DPM2iFkN4v — Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) September 23, 2026 Geopolitical commentator Arnaud Bertrand's breakdown of the official text and the implications: 1) This is now a permanent arrangement: whereas the existing 1951 deal only lasted as long as NATO existed, this one "does not have an end date and may only be amended by mutual consent." It even survives a hypothetical future independence of Greenland: in that event, Denmark and Greenland must ensure that the independent Greenlandic state "affirmatively assume[s] all of the rights and obligations of the Kingdom of Denmark specified in this Agreement." 2) In the 1951 agreement, the US could set up bases only where both governments agreed, and only on the basis of NATO planning. The new deal locks in three bases: the US can "modernize and expand its activities" at Pituffik, its only base in Greenland until now, and "shall be allowed to establish an additional Defense Area at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig." Further bases beyond these 3 can be justified by the defense of "the American continent," a US interest rather than a NATO one. Also, quite subtle but this is interesting: Article IV(iii) says that "the United States may establish additional defense areas in Greenland" and that consultations are then held "to decide implementation details based on mutual agreement." What this means is that the principle of a new base is automatically granted and only the implementation details require agreement. Article VII also gives the US "the right to raise concerns regarding construction, or change of use" of any building near a US base, after which the parties decide together what to do. Which means that the US has a say over civilian planning around its bases. 3) On US military movement across Greenland, the wording change between the 1951 agreement and this new one is quite funny. The 1951 text said (Art. V(3)): the US "may enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the defense areas through Greenland, including territorial waters, by land, air and sea," but only "in accordance with general rules mutually agreed upon and issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The new one says: "the United States of America shall enjoy... the right of free access to and movement between the Defense Areas through Greenland, including the Territorial Waters, by land, air and sea." That's it: "May" becomes "shall," and the US military movement no longer has to follow rules "issued by the appropriate Danish authority in Greenland." The US also gets something new on top: "undersea access to and movement within the Territorial Waters," i.e. submarines. 4) Non-NATO exclusion: non-NATO states are barred from military installations or a persistent presence in Greenland unless all three parties approve, giving the US an effective permanent veto. The 1951 deal had no equivalent clause. 5) Investment screening: this is entirely new. "States or investors from a state that is not a member of NATO, a NATO partner, or an EU member state" (i.e. Russia, China, India, the Gulf States, etc.), "shall not be allowed to have (i) control, (ii) significant influence, or (iii) access to non-public information...within Particularly Sensitive Sectors or Activities in the territory of Greenland (including the Territorial Waters), unless agreed between the Parties." Again, it basically means that the US has a permanent veto over who can invest in strategic sectors in Greenland, as far as non-NATO or EU states are concerned. 6) Lastly, in stark contrast with the 1951 deal, the framing of the deal changes significantly: this new deal is largely framed around the US. The 1951 agreement existed only "for the benefit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." The new one lists the defense of "the American continent" as an objective, celebrates "the irreplaceable role" of the United States military as well as "the United States' indispensable historical and ongoing contributions to the security and defense of Greenland," and names the establishment of Trump's "Golden Dome" missile defense system as a key goal. During his UN speech, Trump unleashed an extremely aggressive statement aimed at Tehran: "Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild and create a far greater country than it ever was before, maybe one of the greatest in the Middle East, or even the world? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic, and do it quickly, never giving them a chance to kill and destroy people and countries again? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival and no hope of future greatness or generations?"   FOR ZEROHEDGE READERSA $10 HEDGE,ON US.$10 off one order of $30 or more. New or returning, one per person. YOUR EMAILGET MY $10 →Signs you up for ZeroHedge Store emails. $30 minimum, once per person, can't be combined. Every order helps support ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 15:40

— Only 7% Of Voters Rank Data Centers As A Top Political Issue; New Survey Finds

 

at 9/23/26 1:40pm

Only 7% Of Voters Rank Data Centers As A Top Political Issue; New Survey Finds Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness, A new poll from the Rainey Center for Public Policy shows just 7 percent of registered voters view data centers as a top-three national political issue, confirming that fewer than 10 percent prioritize them at the federal level. The Washington Examiner reports that the survey of 1,004 registered voters found that found that national concern over data centers remains low with artificial intelligence itself drawing just 12 percent support as a top issue. The poll was conducted between Sept. 10 and 14, after former Anthropic researcher Jacob Coxon quit his role and warned of the existential threat of AI, sparking a nationwide conversation about AI regulation. Voters have a clear ask: build it right. 71% support requiring data-center operators to sign community benefits agreements - covering things like jobs, tax revenue, and grid upgrades - before construction begins. Read our September Policy Survey: Summary of Findings - link in... pic.twitter.com/gb1O7nDMUx — Rainey Center (@RaineyCenter) September 20, 2026 Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents listed "grocery prices, gas and household utilities" as the most salient issue, followed by 30 percent listing jobs and the economy, and 20 percent listing affordable housing. The poll showed AI as the 13th-most salient issue, directly following energy costs and transgender issues in schools and sports, with data centers being built in communities coming in as the 15th-most salient issue, behind cybersecurity. According to PBS Newshour , while voters do not rank data centers high on national political agendas, opposition spikes dramatically when facilities are planned nearby. Fifrt-eight percent of voters say new tech data centers have a mostly negative effect on the country and 65 percent of voters oppose building these facilities in their own communities. Meanwhile 25 percent of voters say they support local data center construction. The polling results follow a week of federal and state lawmakers debating how and whether to proceed with additional AI regulations in the face of calls for guardrails on their own industry from frontier AI lab leaders , according to the Washington Examiner. When questioned on what specifically should be the top three priorities for lawmakers on data centers and AI, 48 percent of survey respondents responded "holding AI companies liable for harms," while 38 percent answered that "data centers pay their own electricity." National leaders remain largely divided on the issue, with President Donald Trump calling on people to ignore the calls for new guardrails because of the United States' AI race with China. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 15:40

— 'Mr.Gold' Warns Higher Rates Will Blow Everything Up

 

at 9/23/26 1:05pm

'Mr.Gold' Warns Higher Rates Will Blow Everything Up Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com, Financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter (aka Mr. Gold) has warned for years about what happens in the end when a debt bubble pops.  Mr. Gold explains, “This bubble is like any other bubble in mankind’s history..." "  In the 1920s, credit was extremely easy.  When credit tightened, it was the wealth effect in reverse.  We saw this again in the early 1970s.  We saw this again in the 1987 crash.  Interest rates went from 7% to over 10% . . . and that bubble popped.  We had the emerging market debt problem back in the early 1990s, Long Term Capital in 1998, the Dot Com bubble in 2000, the 2007-2008 Great Financial Crisis, and all you have to do is look at a chart of bond yields and you’ll see that each time yields spiked, those bubbles popped.  Right now, interest rates are spiking, and this is the biggest bubble.  This is the everything bubble.  Everything is in a bubble.  The only things that are not in a bubble are gold and silver because they are real money.  I think gold and silver are reflecting the risk of the debt structure coming down.  From a global standpoint, countries are moving away from the dollar.   They don’t want to be trapped in the dollar system.  The dollar is the world reserve currency that is issued by an insolvent bankrupt entity.  Higher rates, that’s what is going to blow everything up, higher rates.” Mr. Gold says the rates can fall back down in a hurry if the economy starts to skid.  Mr. Gold also says the so-called “reset” you have been hearing about for years is real.  It cannot be stopped, but it is an unfolding process right up until the very end.  Holter says: “The reset is not a pushed button until the very, very end.  That very, very end is going to be a weekend where you go to bed Friday and things look normal, and on Monday morning, the whole world will have changed. . .. Rising interest rated have happened hundreds of times in history.  That is not the reset.  The reset is when those rising rates affect the existing debt in the system, and that debt fails and collapses.  Of course, you can add in derivatives, and the reset is really a wipeout of wealth.  It’s the wipeout of the population’s wealth.  Along with that goes the ‘Great Taking.’  They started putting these laws on the books in 2014 knowing there was going to be a huge rug pull at some point.  They made it legal for brokers, banks and insurance companies to take client assets . . . to save the corporations.  What does that do to the population?  The population becomes penniless.  If you are not protecting yourself, you are going to get swept up in the wave of the Great Reset.” Holter says the Deep State wants total control, which is why there is a big push to go all digital.  Holter says buying gold and silver is not about making money but protecting purchasing power and a defense against the Great Reset.  Holter says, “If you lose 50%, you have to make 100% to get back to break even.  This is not going to be a time that you lose 50% and then things will start going back up again..." "  Because of the debt all over the world, when the debt breaks, the financial system is going to break.  If you have counterparties between you and your capitol, you are going to lose your capitol.  People ask, how much do I put into gold and silver, and I say put in what you don’t want to lose.  Gold and silver are the only money on the planet that cannot bankrupt in a world that is bankrupting.  If you had this (gold) mindset since 2000, you are way ahead of the pack compared to the S&P or the DOW.  There was zero default risk.  When you bought gold, you got the biggest return and took the lowest risk.” There is much more in the 44-minute interview. Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes one-on-one with financial writer and precious metals expert Bill Holter/Mr. Gold as he warns of the Great Reset and the Great Taking that will come with it for 9.22.26. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 15:05

— "This Nor'easter Is Going To Be An Ordeal"

 

at 9/23/26 12:45pm

"This Nor'easter Is Going To Be An Ordeal" The US East Coast has avoided any tropical development so far this year, but a developing nor'easter in the Atlantic just off the North Carolina and Virginia coast could still deliver hurricane-force winds and heavy rain, with the greatest impacts expected in the Northeast later this week and into the weekend.  "Oh, this Nor'easter is going to be an ordeal. This storm will be a monster and will be lashing the coast for several days. Thank your lucky stars this isn't January because it would be the most epic blizzard," meteorologist Ryan Maue wrote on X, adding, "Maybe it's a harbinger of 'bomb cyclones' to come this winter?" Oh, this Nor'easter is going to be an ordeal. This storm will be a monster and will be lashing the coast for several days. Thank your lucky stars this isn't January because it would be the most epic blizzard. Maybe it's a harbinger of "bomb cyclones" to come this winter? pic.twitter.com/gxOADbTznO — Ryan Maue (@RyanWeather) September 22, 2026 The nor'easter formed earlier today off North Carolina and Virginia and is forecast to strengthen as it moves north along the coast, potentially bringing severe weather to coastal areas of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Nor’easter: brace for 50 mph wind gusts and 15 ft waves! ? It's going to be a rough ride for the East Coast. The storm's worst will probably lash the corridor from New York to Boston this weekend, with coastal flooding a primary concern because of high tides and strong winds. pic.twitter.com/BCAjWa9x25 — Ben Noll (@BenNollWeather) September 23, 2026 "This will be a long-duration storm for many areas along the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts, with impacts beginning along the central Atlantic coast at midweek, spreading to New England on Friday and lasting through the weekend in some areas," AccuWeather wrote in a report.  ⚠️??️ Coastal Flood Warnings & Advisories are in effect for most of our tidal areas through Thursday night or Friday to highlight the widespread minor to moderate tidal flooding expected at high tides. Northeast winds gusting up to 50 mph along the coast through Thursday. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/njQ5fbJsfK — NWS Mount Holly (@NWS_MountHolly) September 23, 2026 On Saturday, the worst of the storm is expected across southeastern New England, particularly Massachusetts. Local outlet NBC Boston warns that the Boston metro could expect  5 to 8 inches of rain between Friday and Sunday, while Cape Cod could see conditions on par with a tropical storm.  "If the low shifts close to Boston, this becomes a massive event with 60 to 70 mph wind gusts, heavy rainfall, major storm surge and significant disruptions to Boston Harbor and the Massachusetts coastline," Fox Weather wrote in a separate report.  [Potential Coastal Storm Fri-Sun] After a dry week we are tracking an early season nor'easter Friday to Sunday bringing rain, strong to damaging wind gusts, as well as coastal flooding/beach erosion. pic.twitter.com/uSpZFiUx8c — NWS Boston (@NWSBoston) September 23, 2026 "The nor'easter could take on some characteristics of a tropical storm," AccuWeather warned.  Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 14:45

— China's Quad-G Plan For Global Hegemony Involves The UN And AI

 

at 9/23/26 12:25pm

China's Quad-G Plan For Global Hegemony Involves The UN And AI Authored by Anders Corr via The Epoch Times, The regime in China denies that it has plans for "hegemony or expansion," but its history - from the peasant land seizures of the 1920s to claims on the entire South China Sea today - is replete with land grabs and territorial expansion. Starting in 2021 with its first of four global initiatives, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has used ideas for such initiatives and Beijing-led international organizations as engines to extend its expansion toward its long-held goal of global hegemony. The CCP's four global initiatives are ostensibly related to development, security, civilization, and governance. They are meant to seem palatable to the international community while integrating the United Nations and other forms of global governance into the CCP's own system, with itself in the lead. The initiatives are currently expanding and strengthening. On Sept. 12, China expanded the digital element of its Global Development Initiative (GDI) by inviting additional countries to join its World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO). The organization was founded in July and is headquartered in Shanghai. CCP leader Xi Jinping gave the keynote speech at the event. He called for "true multilateralism," which analysts interpret as a justification for a parallel global order with Beijing in the lead. WAICO already has approximately 30 member countries, including Russia and Iran. It serves as a key economic and intelligence initiative led by Beijing to expand the CCP's global influence by promoting China's AI software and cloud infrastructure. The more countries use China's AI assets, the more Beijing's authoritarian approach to AI is normalized, and the more opportunities for global espionage and influence open up for China's military and intelligence agencies. More generally, the GDI uses a wedge strategy to increase the CCP's influence in countries by aligning development aid with the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The resulting influence can then be expanded through larger Belt and Road Initiative projects such as ports, trains, roads, pipelines, and digital infrastructure. This broader penetration turns countries toward joining the BRICS group, originally Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and now including Iran, among others. The group is economically dominated by Beijing, which expects BRICS countries to follow the CCP's lead on relatively anodyne statements such as Middle East peace, as well as on more substantial international projects such as AI development and efforts to shift world trade away from the U.S. dollar. Xi has personally invited BRICS countries to join WAICO. The Global Security Initiative (GSI) overlays China's preexisting military partnerships, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), with the vision of a "common" security led by the CCP. The Beijing Xiangshan Security Forum, a key vehicle for extending the GSI to influential international military stakeholders, took place from Sept. 15 to Sept. 17. One subject during the forum was reportedly "the impact of AI on future warfare." The threat posed by the GSI and its networking with military and economic partners is real and current. Iran supports the GSI and is a member of the SCO. On Sept. 12, news broke that Chinese entities, most likely with the approval of the CCP, provided Iran with satellite images of U.S. forces in Jordan. Those images likely assisted Iran's missile attack that killed three U.S. troops in July. China has also provided Iran with dual-use components and fuel precursors for its missile and armed drone technologies used against Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Ukraine. Other than U.S. sanctions against a few Chinese companies, there were few repercussions imposed on the regime in China for providing Iran with dual-use items and satellite intelligence during a war. This signals to Beijing that it can provide the same to other SCO and BRICS countries in the future simply by changing the names and addresses of the Chinese entities involved. Afghanistan, which hosts al-Qaeda terrorists, is an observer nation in the SCO and could also receive Chinese intelligence or equipment for use against the United States, Pakistan, or India. Beijing has long had a positive relationship with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has suppressed non-Pashtun ethnicities in the country. This accords with Beijing's Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), which claims to create a more pluralistic world in part through supporting the sovereignty of dictators even as they stifle free markets, speech, and diversity within their own countries. When Xi announced the GCI in 2023, he hypocritically said: "We advocate the common values of humanity. Peace, development, equity, justice, democracy and freedom are the common aspirations of all peoples. Countries need to keep an open mind in appreciating the perceptions of values by different civilizations, and refrain from imposing their own values or models on others and from stoking ideological confrontation." The hypocrisy of this position is evident because then and now, Xi's regime militarily threatens democratic Taiwan; steals maritime territory from the Philippines, Vietnam, and other South China Sea claimants; takes Himalayan territory from India by force; and destroys the freedoms of religious minorities like the Uyghurs, Christians, and Falun Gong within China. Now, with the CCP's four global initiatives, this violent illiberality threatens to scale globally. Xi unveiled his Global Governance Initiative (GGI) last September at an SCO meeting in Tianjin. It promotes international law with the CCP in the lead and a coordinating function for the three prior initiatives. According to Chinese state media, "Viewed as a unified framework, the four initiatives form a 'four-in-one' interactive structure: development as the foundation, security as the guarantee, civilization as the bond, and governance as the coordinating mechanism - all serving the overarching objective of building a community with a shared future for humanity." The CCP's "community with a shared future for humanity" sounds acceptable on first blush but can be directly compared to Imperial Japan's "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" in that both used anti-colonial rhetoric and regional economic integration to try and replace "Western hegemony" with an illiberal hegemony of its own making, led by an authoritarian and territorially aggressive power. What could be called the CCP's Quad-G Plan for global hegemony is dangerous to free markets, human rights, and democracy. The CCP is a totalitarian political party attempting to use the large economy of China, its diplomats, an international AI norms-setting body, and an already-existing international institutional structure at the United Nations and elsewhere as the power and tracks for moving an established U.S.-led international system with true sovereignty for members toward a global and illiberal hegemony with Beijing at the center. The CCP's Quad-G approach raises questions about whether U.S. national security and the safety of democracies everywhere necessitate significantly reducing the CCP's influence at the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as expanding sanctions from targeting a few Chinese entities to targeting China as a whole. Options at the U.N. include canceling the visas of China's U.N. diplomats, as was done to Iranian diplomats in 2014 and 2020, to working to return China's seat at the forum to democratic Taiwan. Though Taiwan does not currently propose this, other more powerful countries and groupings, including the United States, the European Union, and the G7 countries, should consider encouraging this idea to more effectively counter the CCP. The more democratic countries legitimize the CCP by engaging with it diplomatically, the more latitude it has to influence other countries to depend on its financing, join CCP-led international partnerships, and fall in line with Beijing's proposals to international organizations. This acclimates them and others to further accept the CCP's leadership and its preferred authoritarian forms of global governance, with Beijing at the center. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 14:25

— Kalshi's $5,499 Question: Wash Trading, Or A Subsidized Volume Machine?

 

at 9/23/26 12:05pm

Kalshi's $5,499 Question: Wash Trading, Or A Subsidized Volume Machine? Kalshi's Ethereum perpetual futures contract has a favorite trade size, and it's $5,499. A CoinDesk analysis published Monday pulled 3,450 trades in the contract, a futures product with no expiry that tracks the spot price of ether, from 23 one-hour windows between September 17 and 20. Of those, 1,406 landed within $2 of $5,499. That's $7.7 million of the $13.5 million sampled, or 57% of the dollar volume. Bitcoin perpetuals showed the same thing with different numbers: trades near $2,500 and $5,000 made up 54% of the $8.5 million sampled. Going back to June 19, CoinDesk found a recurring size on 43 of 46 sampled days, with the magic number migrating from $4,999 to $9,999 to $3,999, $4,499 and $5,499. The fight started when Beni, a pseudonymous quant and co-founder of Stealth Neolab, posted that Kalshi's ether perp was printing $539 million of 24-hour volume against $3.1 million of open interest, a ratio of 174 to one, and called the repeating $5,500 prints "undeniable proof" of wash trading. He also waved around an Artemis chart of prediction-market share, which is a different product from the perps, a mistake Kalshi's crypto chief was happy to point out. Hey Beni, Seems like a bunch of wires got crossed here so I just wanted to set the record straight. Your original claim was that Kalshi’s crypto prediction market volume was fake. The chart from Artemis shows prediction market volume share, not perps. We don’t do rebates for… https://t.co/RudV9qzDNn pic.twitter.com/QSIpBu0Cm5 — IcoBeast.eth?? (@icobeast) September 20, 2026 Kalshi's rebuttal the next day was interesting. The exchange says the fixed-size prints come from one market maker resting orders of a set size and getting picked off by "many takers." Its own numbers show the takers winning; in one hypothetical it walks through, the aggressors clear about $98,000. Self-trades are blocked at the matching engine, it runs surveillance for pre-arranged trades, and it has "seen no evidence of collusion or wash trades." Take all of that at face value and Kalshi has still described a market maker that loses money on every fill and keeps quoting anyway. The rebuttal explains why. Its example liquidity deal pays a firm $100,000 a month to keep bids and offers of at least $5,000 resting within 0.1% of each other, 95% of every hour. The money is for being on the book. A quote of exactly $5,000, or $5,499, is what a contract written that way produces. The Subsidy Stack Which raises the question Kalshi's rebuttal doesn't ask of itself: why does the market maker keep doing this? The answer is that Kalshi pays it to, through three separate programs. The resting-liquidity stipend is the first. The second is a fee rebate. A June 24 filing with the CFTC set up a temporary program that hands self-clearing members back all of their net maker and taker fees on perps each month, with two guardrails: no double-paying incentives on the same volume, and no trade may end up net-negative in fees once the maker and taker sides are combined. Free trading for the biggest accounts, but not paid trading. The third would go further. A September 2 filing cuts the taker fee on crypto perps to 0.3 basis points, or 0.003%, and pays the maker a net rebate of the same 0.3 basis points. The filing makes that live "upon Exchange notice, but not earlier than 5:00 PM ET on September 16, 2026." Kalshi says the notice hasn't gone out and the program isn't running, so it can't be what generated the September 17-20 tape. Nobody outside Kalshi can currently check that. Kalshi also runs a retail-facing Volume Incentive Program that splits a cashback pool by each trader's share of volume during reward periods. Market makers with existing agreements are excluded. Whether it touched the disputed markets isn't disclosed. Put together, the stipend pays one side to post the $5,499 quote and the fee rebate makes it free for the other side to hit it. The repeating number is the incentive structure working as written. The CFTC Wrote The Memo Five Weeks Early On August 12 the CFTC's Division of Market Oversight put out a staff advisory, Letter 26-23, whose stated focus is "incentive programs established in connection with prediction markets." It warns that "volume-based rewards with steep tiers or threshold bonuses can encourage participants to trade solely to reach volume targets, heightening risks of wash-trading, pre-arranged trading," and, separately, that "market-maker programs that guarantee net profits or cover participant losses through stipends and rebates may incentivize artificial strategies." Exchanges are told to build surveillance around the specific behavior each program invites. The advisory names no exchange and finds nothing against anyone. Kalshi's response, that CME, Cboe and NYSE all pay for liquidity too, is true and beside the point.  Real Trades, Fake Signal Rajiv Sethi, an economist at Barnard College, published the cleanest account of the mechanism on Wednesday - and it doesn't necessarily point to cheating. In his reading, "the volume rewards paid by Kalshi to the market maker are flowing in part to aggressive traders who are able to move before stale orders can be cancelled." The fee refund makes it worse, because refunding the taker's fee "aggravates the adverse selection problem faced by liquidity providers." His verdict: "By channeling funds to aggressive low latency traders through the market makers, the exchange is undoing the liquidity provision that the rewards were meant to boost." Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 14:05

— More US Homebuyers Apply For Riskier Mortgages As Interest Rates Top 7%

 

at 9/23/26 11:45am

More US Homebuyers Apply For Riskier Mortgages As Interest Rates Top 7% Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times, Higher interest rates pushed prospective homebuyers toward riskier mortgages last week, new industry data show. The total volume of mortgage applications declined almost 2 percent for the week ending Sept. 18, according to a report released by the Mortgage Bankers Association on Sept. 23. This represented the third consecutive weekly drop. Applications for a mortgage to purchase a home fell 1 percent and were down 11 percent from the same time a year ago. Refinancing applications also fell to their lowest levels since February 2025, down 3 percent monthly, and were 62 percent lower year over year. "Applications for both refinance and purchase loans declined further last week, noting that the comparison is to the week that included the Labor Day holiday," Mike Fratantoni, the group's senior vice president and chief economist, said in a news release. Last week's decline aligned with the sharp increase in interest rates. Because fixed-rate mortgage costs have accelerated in recent weeks, borrowers sought riskier adjustable-rate mortgages - also known as ARMs - Fratantoni added. "With fixed rates much higher, more borrowers opted for ARMs, with the ARM share reaching 9.8%, as rates for 5/1 ARMs were more than a percentage point lower than those for fixed rate loans," he said in a statement. The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages rose to 7.12 percent, from 6.97 percent - the highest since May 2024. Mortgage rates have increased by more than 100 basis points since the United States and Israel launched a joint military operation against Iran in late February. The conflict, approaching the seven-month mark, has sent Treasury bond yields surging. The benchmark 10-year Treasury yield reached 5 percent again midweek, up from 3.96 percent before the war in Iran began. The mortgage market generally tracks government bond yields, resulting in higher borrowing costs for prospective buyers. ARMs start with a lower fixed rate for three to ten years, then change every six months or annually based on market conditions. This product saves borrowers money upfront but can swing higher or lower based on benchmark rates. Mortgage rates have ticked up slightly so far this week. As of Sept. 22, the average 30-year fixed rate was 7.17 percent, according to Mortgage News Daily. Fueling Interest Rates Global energy markets and inflation data have been the driving forces behind interest rates and will determine the Federal Reserve's next policy decision, says Jeff DerGurahian, head economist at loanDepot. "For now, rates appear to be standing at a fork in the road. Softer inflation and lower oil prices could provide relief, while continued energy pressure could keep mortgage rates near or above 7%," DerGurahian said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times. Crude prices have fallen sharply this week, with U.S. oil down about 10 percent to around $91 per barrel. Brent, the international benchmark, returned above $100 midweek. As of Sept. 22, the national average for a gallon of diesel has risen to $6.52, according to the American Automobile Association. Meanwhile, the next major inflation report will be August's personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, the Fed's go-to inflation measure. After that, the September consumer price index report will be released in mid-October. The Cleveland Fed projects annual headline consumer inflation will jump to 3.5 percent, but core inflation, which strips out volatile energy and food prices, will hold steady at 2.4 percent. Until then, investors are leaning toward another quarter-point rate hike at the October Federal Open Market Committee policy meeting after the Fed followed through last week on the first increase to the benchmark federal funds rate since July 2023. "Those expectations are not set in stone though," DerGurahian said. "If oil prices move lower or the September core inflation reading comes in softer than expected, the October hike could be pushed further out. Continued improvement could even cause markets to remove one of the three future hikes currently priced in." Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh will hold the next two-day meeting on Oct. 27 and 28. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:45

— US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban

 

at 9/23/26 11:40am

US Diesel Craters, EU Prices Skyrocket As Politico Reports White House Preparing Plan For 90-Day Export Ban Summary:  New Politico Report Suggests White House Preparing For Diesel Export Ban "Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later Politico Reports White House Prepares Plan For 90-Day Diesel Exports Ban Diesel is certainly top of mind in the White House as a global refining crisis has sent prices at the pump for the industrial fuel to record-high levels, so high that Apollo's chief economist, Torsten Slok, warned earlier that it could spark a core inflation shock. Policy maneuvering by the White House is limited, and what has been floated by Trump and some top Republicans is a diesel export ban, while top desks on Wall Street have warned that it's a terrible idea and could exacerbate prices around the world. Earlier, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright was at odds with Trump's call for a diesel export ban; Wright said, "The blunt tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't work." Around lunchtime in New York, a new Politico report said the White House was preparing a potential 90-day ban on diesel exports ahead of November's midterm elections. The report stated that the proposal remains under discussion, with its legal framework unresolved. Politico cited five people familiar with the talks. "What has overpowered cooler heads [in the White House] is the absolutely, sky-is-falling, we-have-to-do-something concern about prices at the pump" faction, said this person, who was granted anonymity to discuss conversations with White House officials. "That camp has been swept aside by the political camp, which says, 'dammit, something has to happen.'" AAA Diesel v. Gas at pump A White House official commented on the report, calling it "another fake news story from Politico." The immediate price action in the fuel markets was: US DIESEL FUTURES SINK MORE THAN 7% TO INTRADAY LOW EUROPEAN DIESEL FUTURES SURGE OVER 7% TO SESSION HIGH Here's what happened: Last week, Barclays refining and midstream analyst Theresa Chen warned clients that a proposed U.S. diesel export ban would be "detrimental to the US refining complex and unlikely to provide the intended price relief." Chen outlined one major problem: keeping diesel inside the country does not guarantee it can reach gas pumps. On Tuesday, Goldman Sachs energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari told clients the global refining system will be stretched through 2027, with diesel and gas prices expected to remain elevated. The latest EIA data (2025) shows that Mexico is the largest buyer of U.S. diesel, followed by Chile, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the UK. Mexico: ~220,000 b/d (17% of total distillate exports). Still #1 but down ~18% from 2024. Mexico imports large volumes of U.S. refined products (gasoline and diesel) while sending heavier crude north. Chile: Second-largest destination; volumes rose ~15–16k b/d from 2024. Brazil: ~103,000 b/d (third). This is well below earlier peaks near 200k b/d; Brazil has taken more discounted Russian barrels since 2022 sanctions redirected Russian diesel away from Europe. Netherlands: ~98,000 b/d (major European trading hub/re-export point). United Kingdom: ~89,000 b/d (record annual average). A case of resource nationalism? Or is the Politico report "another fake news story," as a White House source cited in the report suggests? "Definitely Doesn't Work": U.S. Energy Sec Rejects Diesel Export Ban, Risks Creating Bigger Supply-Squeeze Later President Trump will not be pleased... U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright has publicly opposed calls for a ban on U.S. diesel exports, arguing on Wednesday that the measure would backfire by increasing gasoline and jet fuel prices. "The blunt ​tool of banning diesel exports definitely doesn't ‌work," ⁠Wright said at an event in New York, as reported by Reuters. Wright said restricting exports would leave refiners with excess diesel inventories, forcing them to cut refinery output. Lower refinery runs, he warned, would tighten supplies of other fuels, ultimately driving up costs for consumers and businesses. His comments put him at odds with President Trump, who signaled support for the idea on Tuesday as diesel prices surge to record highs in the U.S. and Europe (and Treasury Secretary Bessent has been assigned to see "if it's feasible." Trump's comments already sent European pries for the fuel surging. With flows from the region's top supplier at risk, Bloomberg reports that European diesel's premium to Brent crude jumped to more than $95 a barrel on Wednesday, a record in Bloomberg data going back to 2011. Known as crack spread, the indicator has been keenly watched by central bankers as they seek to tame inflation. The equivalent measure in the U.S., meanwhile, weakened. Trump's threat comes as Europe is already grappling with the loss of diesel shipments from the Middle East, and Russian export curbs have tightened the global fuel market further. The US has become Europe's main overseas supplier, with American exports of the workhorse fuel surging to a weekly record near 2 million barrels a day last month. A key U.S. oil industry group cautioned against the move, saying it could lower American fuel production and damage the global economy. Of the 8 million barrels of diesel traded globally by sea each day, the U.S. supplies about 1.5 million of them - about 20%. An export ban would remove the single largest source of global diesel from the market, and the consequences could be catastrophic. "Restricting exports is not a solution to high prices," the American Petroleum Institute says. "Removing US diesel from the market could instead result in reduced refinery runs, global economic damage and even higher US prices." Indeed, as Bloomberg macro strategist, Michael Ball, write this morning,while The White House may be able to engineer a brief drop in U.S. diesel prices by limiting exports, it risks creating a bigger supply problem down the road. With distillate stocks at seasonally record lows... ...the appeal is obvious with U.S. diesel above $6.50 a gallon... But a broad curb could strand as much as 1.5 million barrels a day, roughly 29% of U.S. diesel output. If enacted, Ball writes, the effects would be uneven across the U.S. A surplus would build on the Gulf Coast, while pipeline, shipping and fuel-specification constraints limit how easily those barrels can reach tighter East and West Coast markets. Bloomberg Intelligence estimates Gulf Coast storage could only absorb about three weeks of net diesel exports before constraints bite. The global impact would be worse. Kpler argues there is no real replacement for U.S. export volumes, leaving Latin America and Northwest Europe particularly exposed and increasing competition for Indian barrels. China could compound the squeeze as domestic inventories fall and the risk of renewed export curbs rises. The response from refiners would create a negative feedback loop. If trapped barrels crush margins, refiners are incentivized to cut runs and undertake maintenance. S&P Global Energy estimates crude runs might need to fall by nearly 2 million barrels a day - more than 10% of the current production level - to clear the surplus. That is the asymmetry: lower U.S. diesel prices first, tighter global product markets follow, and potentially less U.S. fuel supply later. The more aggressive the restriction, the greater the risk that today's price relief becomes tomorrow's supply problem. Tyler Durden Wed, 09/23/2026 - 13:40

As of 9/23/26 7:33pm. Last new 9/23/26 7:33pm.