Musk Pledges A SpaceX Share To "Every Kid In America" After Anthropic Unveils Murky Public Benefit Fund

Elon Musk said Monday that he will give one of his SpaceX shares to every child in the United States next year. "Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America," he wrote in an Oct. 19 post on X, adding, "This will be the first of many," the Epoch Times reported.

Next year, I will give one of my SpaceX shares to every kid in America.

This will be the first of many.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026

Close to 73 million children under 18 lived in the US as of July 2025 - so at around $147 a share, that comes to close to $11 billion of stock, about 1.5 percent of the roughly 4.8 billion SpaceX shares Musk owns, or 6.4 billion counting options and unvested awards, by the outlet's count.

Musk did not say how the shares would be distributed or whether every child would be eligible. SpaceX, which went public in June, is valued at about $2 trillion, according to the Epoch Times. The Treasury automatically enrolled tens of millions of children in Trump Accounts earlier this month and now allows donors to put stock into them, though Musk did not say he would use the program.

The pledge came a day after Anthropic said it would commit 5 percent of its shares, subject to stockholder approval, to a new Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, with 2 percent more at the board's discretion for each 50 percent rise in the company's value above a set baseline. Counting its co-founders' pledge to donate 80 percent of their equity and an employee donation match, Anthropic says roughly 20 percent of its shares are now committed to the public good.

We're committing a portion of Anthropic's shares to the Anthropic Public Benefit Fund, a new wholly owned entity dedicated entirely to the public benefit.

It will start off with 5% of our shares. For every 50% increase in the company's value over a set baseline, we can...

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) October 18, 2026

The fund, a wholly owned LLC, might make large donations to nonprofits or "direct distributions to specific populations," with AI's effect on jobs one example. Anthropic has not said who will run it and plans to share its structure and governance "in the coming months."

"I recommend giving the shares directly to the public," Musk replied on X about two hours after Anthropic posted the plan on Sunday. Hours later he added, "This is what I will be doing."

I recommend giving the shares directly to the public

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 18, 2026

This is what I will be doing

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 19, 2026

Musk is hardly a neutral critic. SpaceX absorbed his xAI startup in February and now competes directly with Anthropic, which confidentially filed for an IPO in June and has been opening its books to Wall Street ahead of a listing.

In July, SpaceX President Gwynne Shotwell and her husband pledged one share each for more than 2 million children through the Trump Accounts savings program, focused on lower-income children aged 11 to 17. At the $160.42 close on the day the gift was announced, more than 2 million shares came to at least $320 million. 

President Trump told CNBC on July 3 that he expected Musk to contribute SpaceX stock to Trump Accounts as well, saying, "I think that he will do that," according to Jang. Neither Musk nor SpaceX had confirmed it at the time.

In its first earnings report as a public company, on Aug. 4, SpaceX posted $7.8 billion in revenue, but Fortune reported capital spending of $18.4 billion, about $16 billion of it on AI computing, against the $13.2 billion analysts expected. The stock fell more than 5 percent.

The company reports second-quarter results after the close on Oct. 20. Market watchers project revenue of $12.74 billion to $12.89 billion, driven mainly by AI and Starlink, and earnings per share of $0.14 to $0.23, the Epoch Times said. SpaceX is also seeking to raise $40 billion to buy advanced Nvidia AI chips, which the Epoch Times said signals that Musk wants to turn it into an AI computing company.

That spending has been a worry for credit markets. We reported earlier this month that SpaceX credit risk had hit a new high on fears about its AI debt.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 13:40

Secret Service Deputy Director Quits Amid Questions Over Ties To Drone-Defense Maker Fortem

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearPolitics,

Deputy Director Matt Quinn announced his resignation from the Secret Service in an internal agency email Friday amid questions about his conflicts of interest over the agency's counter-drone technology.

Quinn served 23 years as a Secret Service agent before retiring in 2021. He then went to work at drone-manufacturer Fortem Technologies, which sells the DroneHunter product, as a senior vice president for three years before returning to the agency last year to serve as deputy director. His last day will be Nov. 7.

As RealClearPolitics first reported, Quinn was criticized by several current and former Secret Service agents for admitting during a mostly softball Sunday CBS News "60 Minutes" interview that the Secret Service was not prepared for an attack by a drone swarm.

The piece featured a DroneHunter demonstration without mentioning several technical problems the platform has experienced. RealClearPolitics over the last 48 hours submitted detailed questions to the Secret Service about some of the statements made during the "60 Minutes" interview about the drone technology, its effectiveness, whether the DroneHunter's purchases were competitively bid, and the agency's track record in taking out drones.

The "60 Minutes" report did not mention Quinn's prior work for Fortem. The Secret Service did not respond to RCP's questions.

Even before Quinn's announced departure, several Secret Service sources were questioning a report in a recent CBS "60 Minutes" segment that the agency used electronic jamming equipment to take down a drone at the Army-Navy game in Baltimore last December. The game was attended by the president and several members of Congress.

The sources suggest that the Secret Service is not providing the proper context about the downed drone, while raising concerns that it was most likely a friendly-fire incident.

CBS News correspondent Norah O'Donnell sat down with Secret Service Director Sean Curran and Quinn in a joint interview that aired Sunday night, Oct. 11. The three discussed this year's surge in threats to President Trump and his Cabinet and how the agency is trying to adapt to dangers posed by autonomous attack drones, not just lone gunmen.

The 13-minute report features scenes of Curran and Quinn at the agency's Rowley Training Center demonstrating counter-drone systems. The segment featured drone-fighting technology, including the DroneHunter, a weapon that uses AI and radar to disable what O'Donnell referred to as "enemy drones." When it's working properly, the DroneHunter captures targeted unmanned aerial vehicles in a net.

At one point, Quinn, who concedes during the interview that the agency doesn't have the capability to stop a swarm of drones, narrates as a DroneHunter hexacopter captures an unmanned aerial vehicle in a training demonstration.

"Whoa," O'Donnell remarks while watching the capture starting to take place.

"What you see is the drone hanging from the drone hunter," Quinn explains. "So, the bad guy drone is now captured. It's gonna take it to a predetermined safe area."

Near the end of the segment, O'Donnell states without citing a source: "60 Minutes has learned the Secret Service took down a drone using electronic jamming equipment at the Army-Navy game in Baltimore last December where the president and members of Congress were in attendance."

It was just one line in the segment, and there was no explanation of whether the drone posed a genuine threat to Trump and everyone else gathered in the stadium for the annual military academy football rivalry. The report also didn't indicate whether the drone was associated with a foreign actor or was simply a hobbyist's drone that posed no threat at all.

Active and retired Secret Service agents are now calling on agency leaders to explain more fully what happened. Their biggest question is whether it was a case of friendly fire. Instead of intercepting an alien drone that may or may not have posed a threat, a Secret Service officer or agent used a handheld drone-jamming gun to disable and take out one of its own surveillance drones monitoring the stadium, the sources tell RealClearPolitics.

Trigger-happy

A Secret Service source said the Specialized Rifle Unit, a tactical element within the Secret Service's Uniformed Division, got "trigger happy" and took out an agency surveillance drone without communicating with others to find out whether it was an agency asset.

"SRU was, to my knowledge, the drone hunter team, and [they] failed to deconflict," the source told RealClearPolitics. The SRU officers were celebrating until they realized it was a "blue-on-blue" incident, the source added.

Two sources told RCP that the downed Secret Service drone fell either onto or just to the side of Interstate 395, where the agency recovered it. Several sources also said the DroneHunter failed to operate as planned on the day O'Donnell was scheduled to appear at the training center for the demonstration. Since Quinn returned to the Secret Service, several agents have questioned whether he should have recused himself from any decisions on DroneHunter purchases because of his ties to the manufacturer.

The Secret Service didn't respond to a set of emailed questions RCP posed about the Army-Navy game drone downing.

Such a friendly-fire incident would not be the first time this year that a federal law enforcement agency was involved in shooting down a U.S. government drone.

The U.S. military accidentally shot down a U.S. Customs and Border Protection drone using a high-energy anti-drone laser system near Fort Hancock, Texas, in February. Reports on the incident said the CBP didn't coordinate the flight with the military task force assigned to the U.S.-Mexico border.

Still, the agency's silence around the Army-Navy incident is once again stoking internal agency concern that Secret Service leaders have yet to fix all siloed communications between agency assets that are supposed to be working in tandem to protect President Trump.

Another case of siloed communications?

The friendly-fire accusations cite a disconnect between the Secret Service's drone surveillance operators and a team dedicated to disrupting drones that may pose a threat to Trump. The sources say they are raising concerns about the incident because they are deeply worried that the agency has yet to fix the communications confusion that contributed to the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.

The shooting wounded Trump, killed retired fireman Corey Comperatore, and seriously injured two other men, James Copenhaver and David Dutch.

Congressional investigators found that on July 13, 2024, information about shooter Thomas Crooks moved through two largely separate channels - local police and the Secret Service - and also failed to spread within the Secret Service's own network.

'Nothing changes here'

A Biden administration Department of Homeland Security official moved quickly after former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle's resignation in 2024 to reassure Rowe, the incoming acting director at the time, that operations would continue unchanged under his new leadership - even as the agency struggled to defend itself to Congress and the public over Trump's near-assassination.

Newly released documents obtained by the Center to Advance Security in America, a conservative watchdog organization, through ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation reveal new internal reactions to the Butler shooting. The files also provide new detail about the fallout after Cheatle's resignation as Secret Service director days later.

Then-DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas issued an agency-wide email at 1:08 p.m. on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, on his statement regarding Cheatle's resignation, under pressure from lawmakers after her testimony to Congress and Rowe's appointment.

In the statement, Mayorkas commended Cheatle for what he cast as her "tireless dedication," "honor," and "integrity" over nearly three decades in the Secret Service.

"Over the past two years, she has led the Secret Service with skill, honor, integrity and tireless dedication," he said.

Six minutes later, at 1:14 p.m., a DHS official forwarded that same statement - this time to Rowe alone - with a personal note attached: "Nothing changes here, Ron, I have your back."

"Thank you," Rowe replied.

The identity of the person who forwarded the email to Rowe was redacted in the first version CASA received. CASA Director James Fitzpatrick says the DHS and the Secret Service withheld the name, citing personal privacy and a concern that disclosure could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

CASA appealed the redaction, and a judge agreed to overturn it, revealing that Patrick "PJ" Lechleitner, acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from July 2023 to January 2025, sent the note to Rowe.

CASA Director James Fitzpatrick interpreted Lechleitner's "nothing changes" remark as an endorsement of the status quo at both DHS and the Secret Service after a disgraceful breakdown in security.

"Through aggressive FOIA litigation, CASA uncovered documents from the Biden [DHS] showing that an official reassured Ron Rowe just hours after Cheatle resigned that 'nothing changes here' after one of the biggest security breakdowns in the history of the country in Butler, PA," he told RCP.

Contacted by RealClearPolitics, Lechleitner said the comments he made to Rowe at the time were from one "cop to another" that "nothing changes" - "everything is good between ICE and the Secret Service."

"Honestly, I had worked with Ron, and we were all career people before [our political appointments]," he said.

The message was simply one of support, Leichleitner explained.

"It was just [that the] relationship remains regardless of the leadership that moves around," he said.

Lechleitner also said his career background before heading ICE was in DHS's Homeland Security Investigations department, which often works directly with the Secret Service to provide additional federal agents to assist with security at events. In fact, several HSI agents had augmented security for the Butler rally.

Trump removed Lechleitner along with other key Biden immigration enforcement officials on his first day in office.

DEI and a lack of training 'had nothing to do with' Butler failures

A second document provided to CASA through the FOIA process provides details of the "murder board" prep sheet - mock question-and-answer exercise agencies use to prepare officials for hostile congressional questioning - used to ready Rowe for his July 30, 2024, appearance before a joint hearing of the Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees.

Talking points in the document, as described by CASA, include assertions that a forthcoming investigation would show a "thorough security plan" had been in place, that "DEI issues had nothing to do with" the security breakdown, that there was "not a lack of USSS training," and that there had merely been "an unwanted outcome" in Thomas Crooks' near-killing of Trump.

The document also states the agency would "take steps to ensure an unwanted outcome like this does not occur again."

Six weeks later, in September 2024, a second near-miss attempt was made on Trump's life at his golf course in West Palm Beach, Florida. During that incident, a Secret Service agent shot and missed Ryan Routh, who was hiding in the shrubs near the sixth hole while pointing a rifle at Trump and his security team.

Congressional investigations and a GAO report have concluded that inadequate preparation and training contributed to the near-killing of Trump at the July 13, 2024, Butler rally.

Fitzpatrick argues the prep materials show Rowe working to shield the Biden administration's DEI mandates and the Secret Service's training problems from scrutiny rather than fully reckoning with the agency's failures.

"Not only that, but during Rowe's preparation for this July 30, 2024, testimony to a joint Senate committee, he attempts to mask the various downfalls of the Secret Service and goes out of his way to try to protect the Biden DEI initiatives that the agency was obsessed with at the time," Fitzpatrick said.

CASA says the FOIA litigation is ongoing and that it expects additional records to surface as the redaction appeal proceeds.

The Secret Service did not respond to a request for comment.

A dissenting voice from inside the agency

Rowe's Senate testimony contradicts assertions by numerous former senior Secret Service agents and at least one current agent who has spoken out against the agency's DEI policies, which he asserts directly contributed to the Butler shooting.

Rashid Ellis, a 13-year veteran of the agency who has served in an elite unit and on top protective assignments, last year sat down for an interview with the Independent Women's Forum, a Virginia-based conservative nonprofit.

"My initial thoughts when seeing the Butler assassination attempt was dread," Ellis says in a video. "My stomach was in knots watching it because we had known for years that this was coming."

Ellis went further in the interview, saying he believes internal DEI agendas at the agency had long taken precedence over its protective mission, and that this dynamic is directly connected to what happened in Butler.

A graduate of The Citadel military college in South Carolina, Ellis has held a string of high-level assignments over his 13-year career, including a stint on the agency's Counter Assault Team, an elite tactical unit, and a posting on the Presidential Protective Detail. He has also taught counter-surveillance as an instructor at the Secret Service's training center.

Ellis, who is African American, argued in his lawsuit that the agency's diversity-based hiring and promotion practices have damaged morale and fueled a wave of departures among senior agents.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 13:25

Communism, Berlin Edition: Adler Bonds Crash To Record Low As Left Coalition Plans To Socialize 152,000 Apartments

Five years after Berliners voted to expropriate their landlords, the German capital finally has a government willing to do it.

On Saturday, Die Linke, the Greens and the SPD presented the 30-page exploratory paper that will underpin their coalition agreement for the next Berlin Senate, and buried among the usual promises sits a plan to socialize, under Article 15 of the German constitution, every apartment a private landlord owns in Berlin above the first 10,000. The compensation for this act of municipal generosity: a hard cap of €16 billion which works out to about €105K per unit, or 58% of book value... and even that cap is conditional on "fiscal sustainability."

The bond market did the rest: Adler Group's 10% notes due 2029 plunged 20 points on Monday to a record low around 59 cents on the euro (they dropped as 53 earlier in the session), as creditors scrambled to price in the possibility that 43% of Adler's yielding Berlin portfolio is about to be bought by the state at a 42% to 48% discount to book.

Regular readers will recall we flagged the direction of travel back in January, when we noted that the German capital had become a testing ground where socialism was on the rise in Berlin's real estate market. And on election night, September 20, when the results first came in, we tweeted the punchline:

MERZ'S CDU PARTY POSTS WORST RESULT EVER IN A GERMAN STATE VOTE AFD AHEAD OF SOCIAL DEMOCRATS IN NORTHEASTERN STATE VOTE ANTI-CAPITALIST LEFT PARTY LEADING IN BERLIN ELECTION

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 20, 2026

Four weeks later, the anti-capitalist party is about to run the city and the plan is on paper. So let's look at who is on the list, what Berlin is offering, and why the people most likely to stop this sit in Karlsruhe and in the Chancellery.

From "Deutsche Wohnen Enteignen" To "Vonovia, Mostly"

Some background first. In September 2021, Berliners voted 59.1% in favor of a non-binding referendum to expropriate landlords owning more than 3,000 apartments, about 240,000 units in total. The CDU-SPD Senate that followed sat on it, an expert commission concluded in 2023 that it was possible under Article 15 (an article which, for what it's worth, has never been used in the 77-year history of the Federal Republic), and that was that.

Then on September 20, Die Linke, whose roots lie in the East German communist party, won 25.7% of the vote, its best result ever, displacing Merz's CDU from the mayor's office. Its lead candidate Elif Eralp, who told Reuters that Zohran Mamdani's win in New York was "a big example for us", campaigned on expropriating more than 200,000 units. And in case anyone thought it was just rhetoric, the party's Berlin deputy chair Martha Kleedörfer helpfully told investors on Instagram that the Left would have no problem if they "finally go home".

The SPD, whose lead candidate Steffen Krach had categorically ruled out expropriations during the campaign, folded in the exploratory talks; the price of power, it turns out, was about 152,000 apartments.

What the three parties agreed:

• Threshold of 10,000 units per company (vs. 3,000 in the referendum), with each landlord allowed to keep the first 10,000; apartments built after January 1, 2021, cooperatives and non-profits are exempt
• Compensation capped at €16 billion, conditional on fiscal sustainability, meaning it can fall if financing conditions worsen
• A financing concept in 2027 which leaves open whether owners get cash or 100-year bonds, a bill in the Berlin parliament by mid-2028, and transfers taking effect one year after promulgation, i.e. mid-2029 at the earliest

Based on documented holdings, that means roughly 152,000 apartments (the Left's own spokesperson puts it at about 160,000 from five companies, adding the DVI Group): Vonovia 128K, Heimstaden 10K, Adler 7.4K and Covivio 7K. In other words, this is overwhelmingly a Vonovia story, as the 10,000 allowance shields almost all of the smaller landlords and leaves Germany's biggest landlord holding the bag on 93% of its Berlin stock.

Buy High, Expropriate Low

Now the fun part: the price. At €16 billion for ~152,000 units, Berlin is offering about €105K per apartment, roughly 58% of book value on a pro rata basis. That alone is a remarkable number, but it becomes even more remarkable when you recall that Berlin has bought these very same apartments before.

Back in September 2021, nine days before the referendum, Vonovia and Deutsche Wohnen sold almost 15,000 apartments to the city's municipal housing companies for €2.46 billion, or about €165K per unit. At the time, the expropriation campaigners slammed the deal as a "backdoor" purchase at "speculative prices". Five years, one property crash and one election later, the city wants the next batch for 36% less... and this time it won't be asking nicely.

Even at those prices, the math is probably not as easy as the Left thinks. Berlin's debt is already close to €70 billion, and the State Audit Office estimated in 2024 that paying market value could cost as much as €40 billion. Which is presumably why the €16 billion cap is "conditional" and why the 100-year bond idea is still floating around (an earlier Left draft talked about paying 40% to 60% of market value in century bonds). Paying for apartments with paper that matures in 2129 is one way to keep the deficit looking fine for a while. Or as Chancellor Merz put it after the election, "They'll never be able to pay for it all."

He may well be right, but that is little comfort for anyone holding the paper in the meantime. It also makes this morning's sibling piece on how Germany's rent control is backfiring especially timely: Berlin has spent a decade "fixing" its housing shortage with price controls, and now proposes to fix the result of those price controls with... confiscation.

Adler: The Weakest Link Gets Named (Twice)

Why did Adler's bonds crash while Vonovia's stock slid "only" about 2.6%? Because for Adler, this is an existential question for creditors. According to the Special Situations Research Newsletter, Adler's 7.4K exposed units represent roughly 43% of its yielding portfolio. At the cap, Adler would receive €105K per unit on a flat split, or closer to €115K pro rata to book, i.e. €777 million to €860 million against €1.49 billion of book: a 42% to 48% discount, which implies a gross rental yield of about 7% at the cap.

And it gets worse. Beyond Article 15, the exploratory paper goes out of its way to name Adler's Steglitzer Kreisel tower as its example of a "speculative construction ruin" (Bauspekulations-Ruine). The coalition says it will sanction inactivity on such sites, expects completion "often only after insolvency proceedings", and plans to use "transfer of ownership" to get there. Being singled out by name in a governing coalition's founding document is rarely a good sign for a twice-restructured issuer, which is maybe why the 2029s went from 78 to the high 50s in one session, after already sliding from par since mid-September.

Heimstaden is next in line with more than 20K Berlin units, meaning roughly 10K are exposed, about 6% of the group total (and a bit more by value, since German units carry higher book values than the group average). Heimstaden is already in the news after Goldman flagged last month that Vonovia could be a potential winner of a €10 billion third-party mandate linked to Alecta's reported separation from Heimstaden.

Vonovia: "Unconstitutional"

As for Vonovia, which has the most to lose with roughly 128K exposed units, the response was swift. The company told dpa that the exploratory result "changes nothing" about its stance and that it is convinced socialization in the planned form is unconstitutional and would not survive the courts. The company also pointed out that the average rent in its Berlin portfolio is €8.26 per square meter (hardly the stuff of rapacious landlords) and that it has about 1,000 units under construction in the city; CEO Luka Mucic had already noted after the election that socialization doesn't create any new housing.

The stock fell more than 2% on Monday morning to around €16.40, near its lowest since 2023 and down more than 40% YTD. Some on the sell side are taking it in stride: Baader's Christian Auzanneau, who still has a Buy and a €30.30 target on the stock (set before the coalition paper), argued that there is no broad political majority for expropriation and that federal law stands in the way. Which brings us to Goldman.

In a note published this morning (available to pro subs), Goldman's European real estate team writes that the latest Berlin proposal "moves a step forward, but scope reduced":

Following the September Berlin election, where Germany's Die Linke (the Left) party took first place, the Left, Greens and SPD have now concluded exploratory talks and will each vote to enter formal coalition negotiations. They have reaffirmed plans to pursue the socialisation of large residential portfolios, but the latest proposal is narrower than both the original 2021 referendum proposal and earlier campaign proposals. It focuses on landlords with at least 10,000 units instead of 3,000 units, and landlords would be allowed to keep 10,000 units, in practice implying the coalition would target c. 160,000 units for nationalisation at a proposed maximum compensation of [€]16bn (i.e. €100k / unit).

Goldman then points to the federal backstop: Merz's CDU/CSU-SPD government has called for an acceleration of a federal law to veto the nationalisation of private housing companies through state-level socialisation laws, with first drafts already prepared and coordinated between the Justice and Interior Ministries. Still, the bank's conclusion is hardly a ringing all-clear:

We continue to see Berlin housing policy uncertainty as an overhang for residential landlords with exposure to the city, pending greater clarity on coalition formation and the resulting policy framework.

Translation: nobody knows if this will survive the Constitutional Court or a federal veto, but nobody wants to own the stock while they find out.

The Fine Print Nobody Is Talking About

Even if Article 15 never gets used, the paper contains plenty that will apply to every landlord in the city, not just the four big ones:

• A new rent regulator (Mietenaufsicht) starting in 2027, policing rents more than 20% above the local reference rent
• A rent and housing register from 2028
• A dedicated rent-usury (Mietwucher) unit at the public prosecutor's office

Put differently, Berlin is about to make it a matter for the prosecutor if you charge too much rent, at the same time as it is about to pay 58% of book for the apartments of those who didn't. Capital tends to notice this sort of thing. Berlin also has company: earlier this month Spain's government revived its rent cap decrees ahead of its snap election, the same election that added Madrid to Europe's "Red October" bond crisis. Europe's answer to a housing shortage made worse by record immigration appears to be, well, more controls.

Market Already Pricing In Communism

The timeline matters here: the Left votes on entering coalition talks at its party conference on October 31, formal talks start in November, the financing concept follows in 2027, the bill in mid-2028, and no apartment changes hands before mid-2029. Between now and then, there is a federal veto law in the works, a constitutional challenge from Vonovia that is all but certain, and a €16 billion check that Berlin, with nearly €70 billion in debt already and German cities on the verge of bankruptcy, probably can't write.

So maybe the expropriation never happens. But that misses the point: the damage is done the moment a German state government puts a 42% haircut on private property in writing, and the market is already pricing it, from Adler's bonds to Vonovia's equity to whatever cost of capital the next investor in Berlin housing demands. As Goldman put it, the uncertainty is an "overhang", and overhangs in German real estate have a way of lasting years.

The irony: today and tomorrow, Berlin is hosting the Invest in Germany Summit, where policymakers will explain to foreign capital why it should finance the country's AI, defense and infrastructure buildout. The punchline writes itself.

Much more in the full Goldman note "Germany Real Estate: Residential: Berlin socialisation proposals move a step forward, but scope reduced", available to pro subs.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 13:10

Cook Case Tests The Limits Of Fed Independence

Authored by Alexander W. Salter via The Daily Economy,

President Trump has renewed his effort to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board.

Whether he has a legitimate reason to fire her is another matter. The White House announced a three-person "committee of inquiry" to investigate whether Cook made false statements on mortgage applications, and whether that is sufficient cause to remove her from her post. Next month, the committee will question her at a White House hearing.

This is Trump's second attempt. In June, the Supreme Court blocked the first one. As I wrote at the time, the ruling carved out a special exemption for the Fed. That same morning, the justices ruled in Trump v. Slaughter that agency heads who wield executive power answer to the president. Then immediately, they shielded the most powerful agency of all from the impact of that ruling.

But the June decision was narrow: Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal for cause. The White House is now complying with both requirements. Cook's lawyers maintain that the alleged infraction - designating two properties as her "primary residence" - was just an "inadvertent error," pointing out that the president's and Treasury Secretary Bessent's own property filings contain the same discrepancy.

Whether the allegations around mortgage documents are proven or not, the real stakes are much bigger. President Trump's attempt to unseat Cook ultimately tests central bank independence. The conventional defense of central bank independence, reinforced by the high court's treatment established in Slaughter, holds that the Fed should be insulated from political accountability to do its job well. That doctrine deserves far more scrutiny than it usually gets.

Central bank independence rests on two claims.

The first is empirical: independent central banks supposedly deliver lower inflation. But the evidence for that is decidedly mixed, and varies with the sample and the estimation method. There's a simpler explanation that also fits the data: countries that respect the rule of law also tend to keep prices stable. Sound money comes from sound institutions, not from insulated technocrats.

The second claim is constitutional: the Fed's insulation supposedly fits within our system of separated powers. But it does not. Congress holds the power to coin money and regulate its value, and has delegated substantial power to the Fed. Many of the Fed's activities, particularly bank supervision and enforcement actions, involve the exercise of executive power. The Constitution vests the executive power in a president, who answers to voters. If central bankers who exercise that power are shielded from discipline and removal, then they answer to no one.

Milton Friedman made the fundamental argument more than 60 years ago in Capitalism and Freedom:

Mistakes, excusable or not, cannot be avoided in a system which disperses responsibility yet gives a few men great power, and which thereby makes important policy actions highly dependent on accidents of personality. This is the key technical argument against an 'independent' central bank.

An independent central bank concentrates power while diffusing responsibility. When policy fails, no one is answerable for the failure.

The Fed's recent record bears Friedman out. Following COVID-19, the central bank delivered the worst inflation in four decades. Five years later, inflation still runs above target. No one was fired, demoted, or made to face any meaningful consequence. While failing at its price stability mandate, the Fed took up projects Congress never authorized, issuing climate-risk guidance for large banks and building out DEI programming. This is what bureaucracies do when nobody can discipline them.

Cook is not a bystander here. She has served on the Board since May 2022, with inflation at 40-year highs. She attributed the Fed's inflation failures to supply constraints rather than monetary policy. And when the Board rescinded its climate guidance last fall, she formally objected. None of this constitutes "cause" in the White House's sense, and Trump's motives are doubtless partisan. But it does illustrate the deeper problem: Fed officials operate in a system where poor performance carries no penalty.

The president's committee will likely recommend firing Cook. If the president follows through, another round of litigation is likely. Remember, the problem is not a specific monetary policymaker's alleged wrongdoing. It's central bank independence itself. The solution is accountability of the ordinary kind: a limited mandate simple enough for citizens to evaluate, with meaningful consequences for poor performance. Eventually, a monetary rule could further limit officials' discretion. As Friedman put it:

The only way that has yet been suggested that offers promise is to try to achieve government of law instead of men by legislating rules for the conduct of monetary policy that will have the effect of enabling the public to exercise control over monetary policy through its political authorities, while at the same time...[preventing] monetary policy from being subject to the day-to-day whim of political authorities.

The case for central bank independence rests on a straw man. Neither Congress nor the President will set interest rates. What matters is who's ultimately in charge, especially with inflation above the Fed's target for more than five years. The American public can't afford the Fed's simultaneous concentration of power and exemption from accountability.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 11:10

Zelensky Knows Peace Deal Would End Him, Lavrov Says

Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is currently in the Gulf region. On Sunday he visited Bahrain, which was hit frequently by Iranian drone and missile attacks earlier in the US-Iran war.

On Monday, the top Russian diplomat is meeting with senior Iranian officials in Tehran, where top of the agenda is the ongoing conflict with the US as well Iran-Russia relations. This marks Lavrov's first visit to the Islamic Republic since February 2025, and so is very significant. But he also issued stern comments related to Russia's own 'special military operation'.

Getty Images

In Bahrain, Lavrov gave some remarks before a press conference in which some interesting things were said about the Ukraine war. He reiterated the familiar Kremlin refrain that the Zelensky government and its backers are not actually interested in peace, and are actually trying to derail Trump-led efforts.

That's when he said that Ukrainian President Zelensky knows that a comprehensive peace deal with Moscow would spell the end of his regime, according to Russian state media.

"It is obvious that Zelensky has no desire to even move toward reaching agreements," Lavrov said.

"Presumably, this is because he understands that any agreement acceptable to both Russia and the US would spell the end of his regime – and his own personal end as well," he emphasized.

He further lambasted EU leaders for encouraging Ukrainian attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, even as Washington tries to impose a ban on these to stave off a deepening global diesel crisis.

"I am confident that decisions will be made there [at the meeting of gas-exporting countries to be held in Moscow on October 28-29] aimed at stabilizing global markets, rather than collapsing these markets in order to save Zelensky's regime, which is what our European colleagues are currently doing, including by encouraging the aforementioned strikes on civilian infrastructure," Lavrov added.

Days prior to the Gulf visit, Lavrov said: "Zelensky is not interested in holding elections in Ukraine, he 'made it very clear'." The foreign ministers added: "He has fenced it with terms that are unacceptable for us."

NEW: Volodymyr Zelenskyy Bloomberg interview by @DarynaKrasno and our Kyiv team + Says Trump is pushing Ukraine to capitulate to Russia. “I believe steps have been taken to convince Ukraine to capitulate” + Says he’s offered to stop striking Russian oil refineries if the US provides Patriot air defences. “My latest model was: We don’t target Russian diesel, you give us missiles for Patriot systems to protect our facilities” + Says the US is threatening to cut off support if Ukraine doesn’t stop its refinery strikes. “They just want us to stop attacking diesel. And if we strike that, they will disconnect us from something” + Says the US is slowing deliveries of Patriots already paid for via the PURL scheme. “We have paid for the weapons. A part of the supplies has been authorized, while the rest haven’t been. And this is not a technical issue” + Says he thinks the US situation may improve after the mid-terms. “Politics is very aggressive during election time. I think it is agony now, but after elections, life will continue and I believe it will be calmer” https://t.co/CQTndkgUIu

— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) October 18, 2026

As for the comments on the 'end' of Zelensky's rule, many independent observers have in the past noted that if Zelensky were to make significant territorial compromises with Russia, hardline right elements within Ukraine's security establishment could overthrow him (or worse, assassinate him).

President Trump is meanwhile calling on Kiev to urgently hold elections, coupling this with serious cuts to what Washington has been supplying over prior years, especially intelligence-sharing. Trump has also just signed a major sanctions waiver for Russia, coming on the heals of the diesel deal he did with Putin.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 10:40

Brent Flirts With $110 Before Reversing As Wright Declares Pump Prices Have "Peaked"

Brent crude futures briefly tagged $109.99 a barrel in overnight trading before retreating from five-month highs during the Asian session and into European trading, as signs of recovering Middle Eastern supply offset renewed attacks on energy infrastructure and critical maritime shipping lanes.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright reinforced expectations of easing fuel prices at the pump, with ABC News quoting him on Sunday as saying gasoline and diesel prices had "peaked."

"Both gasoline and diesel prices peaked a few weeks ago," Wright said, adding that the US wants them to "pull back a lot more than they have."

He said he understands the mounting frustrations at the pump, which have soured consumer sentiment, but said the administration is "working in all different avenues" to address the problem.

The latest data from AAA show the national average for diesel prices at the pump on Sunday stood at around $6.319 a gallon, down from the previous record high of $6.50.

AAA pump data also show regular gasoline prices sliding from the $4.50 level to $4.295 by Sunday, still above the politically sensitive $4 level.

Wright said Gulf oil flows had recovered to about 80% of pre-conflict levels, although refined-product shipments remained heavily constrained amid a global refining crisis compounded by Ukraine's persistent attacks on Russian refineries.

Separately, Wright told Fox News that Trump administration officials were discussing releases of diesel stockpiles in coordination with European allies.

June Goh, a senior oil market analyst at Sparta Commodities SA, told Bloomberg, "The markets seem unwilling to absorb the higher prices with the rest of the economy not looking rosy," adding that Brent crude is likely to remain around $100.

The Wall Street Journal reported overnight that Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed talks next month with President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Moscow confirmed discussions were underway.

Last week, the International Energy Agency reinforced Goldman Sachs energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari's warning that there is no quick relief at the pump, as the refining crisis, particularly in diesel, will persist well into next year.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 07:45

Struggling Volkswagen Plans Pay Freeze Through 2030 As Job Cuts Loom: Report

In another episode of the "death of Europe," a new report from Germany brings more troubling news for struggling automaker Volkswagen, suggesting to us that globalists in the bloc have squandered not just their inheritance but their economic future through a failing progressive experiment that has neutered Europe's industrial base.

German daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (SZ) reports that Volkswagen plans to freeze salaries through the end of the decade as it expands its cost-cutting push after lowering its outlook and doubling its job-reduction target.

"Internal documents reveal that hundreds of thousands of employees are to forgo pay raises. These latest plans represent a further escalation in the conflict between management and employee representatives," SZ wrote in the article.

The proposed freeze is part of a broader restructuring plan the executive board approved, SZ said, citing internal documents. It added that all regions and plants are expected to make an "appropriate" contribution to Volkswagen's "Group Target Picture," a turnaround strategy aimed at rescuing the automaker.

The plans follow Volkswagen's September decision to slash its outlook and double its job-cut target to 100,000 positions.

More context:

• The Future Of Volkswagen?
• VW Supervisory Board Recommends Another 4,100 Job Cuts At Porsche
• Death Of Europe's Industrial Base: VW CEO Set To Announce 50,000 Job Cuts

Why Europe allowed a flood of Chinese EVs and hybrids to undercut its own automakers is a question for the history books.

Brussels has at least begun to respond, agreeing earlier this month to cap Chinese hybrid imports at 350,000 vehicles a year, with restrictions expected to take effect in December. It's a start.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 07:20

Europe Braces For A Winter Energy Crisis As Gas Reserves Run Low

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice,

• Europe faces another expensive winter as low gas reserves and Middle East disruptions drive up energy prices.

• Rising fuel costs threaten household budgets, industrial production, and employment across Europe.

• Increased U.S. LNG supplies could provide some relief, but continued geopolitical risks leave energy markets vulnerable.

After months of elevated energy prices, Europe can expect fuel costs to continue rising through the winter months as demand grows. Ongoing energy trade constraints and threats to energy infrastructure across the Middle East are expected to limit global energy supplies and continue to drive up prices, hitting consumers hard unless governments intervene.

The European Union (EU) is thought to have paid an additional €100 billion on oil and gas so far this year, prompting EU ministers to seek ways to manage the impact of high fuel prices. Since 2022, the extra costs of energy have surpassed €900 billion, even as total demand has fallen. The price of natural gas in Europe has more than doubled since the outbreak of the U.S.-Israeli-led war in Iran. This winter could be the most challenging in terms of energy supplies and prices since the start of Russia's war on Ukraine and the subsequent sanctions on Russian energy.

Meanwhile, EU energy commissioner Dan Jorgensen has warned that the winter months could be challenging amid "very high" oil and gas prices, although he reassured consumers that no supply issues are expected. Jorgensen also proposed postponing the introduction of rules to reduce methane emissions on energy imports to help ease pressure on European energy markets.

Gas storage has fallen to its lowest level since 2022. In September, across Europe, gas storage stood at around 67 per cent full, compared with a seasonal average of around 80 per cent. Germany, which has the largest storage capacity in Europe, is roughly half full, and is expected to miss its official 80 per cent storage target this year.

Meanwhile, constrained supplies due to strict limits on energy trade through the Strait of Hormuz have sharply driven up energy prices. Oil prices increased by 65 per cent, diesel by 45 per cent, and jet fuel by 112 per cent between September 25, 2025 and 2026. This has led the European Commission to call for consumers to reduce their demand throughout the year to manage supplies.

As Europe heads into its high-demand winter months, there is no end to the war in Iran in sight. In addition, the El Niño weather cycle is expected to add an element of uncertainty to weather trends, which could further complicate the gas demand picture. Threats remain to fuel shipments traversing the Strait of Hormuz, as well as ongoing threats to energy infrastructure across the Middle East. Meanwhile, Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and against pipelines continue to be a concern. Therefore, there are likely to be restrictions on global oil trade well into 2027.

The United States has focused on increasing oil and gas production to help alleviate some of the energy supply chain constraints, but this can only partly fill the gap. Atlantic and Pacific freight rates have returned to pre-Iran war levels, as a larger share of cargoes from the United States is heading to Europe rather than Asia, thereby reducing travel distances and increasing ship availability.

The independent LNG and shipping analyst Pratiksha Negi stated, "The growing share of Atlantic trade, combined with an increasing pool of prompt vessels, will continue to pressure freight rates... I expect Europe to remain the principal destination for marginal U.S. LNG at the start of Q4 2026, given the significant storage deficit this season." Negi also highlighted the rise in newbuild deliveries, with roughly 55 new vessels delivered in the first seven months of the year and another 40-45 expected by the end of the year.

Across Europe, it is not only households that are concerned about their energy bills, as several industries prepare for fuel shortages. Higher fuel prices are driving up operating costs in factories and other facilities, which could lead companies to charge more for manufactured goods, as costs will once again shift to consumers. Meanwhile, companies that cannot secure or afford adequate fuel supplies may be forced to suspend operations in the winter, leading to job cuts.

A recent forecast by the Item Club suggested that in the United Kingdom, as many as 163,000 jobs could be lost in 2026 in relation to the war, mainly in manufacturing-heavy regions such as South Wales and the Humber region. As one of Europe's biggest gas consumers, the U.K. is highly exposed to trade restrictions, particularly because it has one of the lowest levels of domestic storage capacity, which means it relies heavily on pipeline imports from Europe and tankers from the U.S. and the Middle East. The CEO of British Gas owner Centrica, Chris O'Shea, said in August that Britain had "almost no gas in storage" for the coming winter.

Both households and businesses across Europe could be hit hard this winter by the continued constraints on oil and gas supplies and high energy prices. This could force consumers to ration their consumption and may prompt the European Commission and governments to intervene to ensure consumers have access to vital energy supplies.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 05:00

70% Of Moroccan Asylee Claims In Ceuta After Mass Entry Cite Persecution Over Sexual Orientation

Spanish police say about 70% of the Moroccans processed in Ceuta after July's mass entry have asked for asylum alleging persecution over their sexual orientation, according to El Periódico de Ceuta, which relays figures from National Police sources first published by the Spanish daily ABC. The number comes from unnamed police sources, not published statistics.

Migrants hold Spanish flags and signs calling for asylum as they gather in Ceuta, Spain, August 16, 2026. REUTERS/Maria Alejandra Cardona TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The paper says officers handling migration in the enclave see a shift from the economic or work reasons Moroccans usually gave, and that the claims have reshaped the caseload at the city's asylum office. Morocco-focused outlet Yabiladi reports that the sources suspect some applicants are being coached on asylum procedures as a way to stay in Spain.

Only five of those who arrived in the mass entries have so far won refugee status for persecution over homosexuality, El Periódico says. Spain's Office of Asylum and Refugees reviews each file individually, and the paper says investigators are still weighing whether each account is true.

Being gay is not enough by itself, Yabiladi notes: applicants must show a well-founded risk of persecution if sent back, judged on interviews, consistency, documents and conditions in Morocco, and without relying on stereotypes. Morocco criminalizes same-sex relations under Article 489 of its penal code, and the U.S. State Department says hundreds of men and women are prosecuted for it each year, per AP.

Neither report says how many claims sit behind the 70% figure. El Periódico describes it as a share of Moroccans attended after the entries, while Yabiladi calls it 70% of applications, so the denominator is unclear.

Some claimants have told their stories. An AP report on Oct. 11 quoted a gay man from Tetouan who left after his brother threatened to report him to police: "I left Morocco because being gay is so hard." AP said it could not independently verify the asylum claim of one interviewee. Police cleared the beachside tent camp in early October.

The scale of the July 30-31 entry is itself disputed. Spanish government estimates put the number who reached the city at 72,000, many swimming around the border fence, the Irish Times reported in August. The government counted 83 deaths and a human rights group 141. Most of those who crossed were sent back to Morocco, several thousand remain, and Yabiladi puts the number still in the city at about 10,000.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska has said none of the migrants will stay in Ceuta or travel to the mainland. Spain raised police and Civil Guard numbers in the city from 1,100 to 1,600, and Morocco put soldiers and extra fencing along the border. Madrid blamed traffickers, but the cause of the crossing has not been identified.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 04:15

Germany's Rent Control Is Backfiring, New Study Of 107 Cities Finds

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via RealClearMarkets,

Across Europe, the housing shortage is getting worse - and left-wing parties have discovered it as a central political issue. Recently, the far-left party DIE LINKE even won the elections in Berlin, the German capital, campaigning on a demand to nationalize large housing companies. In Spain, hundreds of thousands of people have demonstrated in favor of stricter regulations.

But do such measures really help?

We should learn from Germany's experience, where a form of rent control known as the "Mietpreisbremse" (rent brake) was introduced back in 2015 and has since been tightened several times.

Yet this rent control policy is producing precisely the opposite of what it was intended to achieve. That is the conclusion of a new doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Regensburg, Europe's leading university for real estate studies.

In Germany, the gap between rents paid by existing tenants and rents charged for newly rented apartments is growing wider. In his 2026 dissertation, "Housing Markets Between Regional Heterogeneity and Political Intervention," Lars Jagemann analyzes 107 German cities. He finds that the gap between existing rents and asking rents for new leases averages 20 to 25 percent, reaching as much as 50 percent in major metropolitan areas.

This creates what economists call a "lock-in effect." As Jagemann explains, existing tenants hold on to their inexpensive, legally protected rental contracts and avoid moving into the more expensive segment of the market, even when their current homes no longer suit their circumstances.

As a result, the supply of housing available to people who need to move, such as young families or those starting their careers, shrinks, making it increasingly difficult for them to find an apartment. The market becomes increasingly divided into two groups: "insiders," who benefit from stable, inexpensive rental contracts protected by regulation, and "outsiders," who are looking for housing and face sharply rising market rents for new leases.

The dissertation confirms what economists have repeatedly warned about: While German housing policy aims to promote social stability and protect tenants, the measures introduced create unintended market distortions that can, paradoxically, harm precisely those groups they are supposed to protect. Regulation, the author concludes, is becoming increasingly "dysfunctional."

In theory, there are two possible responses: even more regulation, or deregulation and greater reliance on market forces. The author himself makes no direct recommendation. It would have been desirable for the dissertation to examine in greater detail the problems associated with even stricter regulation, particularly the "interventionist spiral" identified by economist Ludwig von Mises.

According to Mises, tighter regulations may temporarily alleviate certain problems, but they create new ones. Governments then introduce additional regulations to address these problems, which in turn produce further unintended consequences.

In fact, the dissertation provides empirical confirmation of this mechanism. Since Germany introduced its rent brake in 2015, the policy has already been tightened several times. The so-called "Kappungsgrenze," which limits rent increases for existing tenants, has also been made more restrictive.

The central finding of the dissertation is that precisely because housing is a fundamental social need, housing policy interventions must respect the inherent mechanisms of the market. Regulations that work against fundamental economic incentives provoke avoidance strategies that can place additional burdens on vulnerable groups. Sustainable housing policy, so the authors, must therefore make intelligent use of market mechanisms rather than fight them: by creating incentives instead of imposing prohibitions, expanding supply instead of capping prices, and establishing transparent, long-term rules instead of constantly changing interventions.

The author also places particular emphasis on the damaging effects of political uncertainty. Such uncertainty is created not only by actual government policies. Even the discussion of possible new regulations can generate uncertainty, prompting investors to adopt a wait-and-see approach.

Uncertainty is always bad for investors, but it is particularly damaging in real estate, the author argues, because investments require long planning periods and are largely irreversible. Unlike stocks, investors cannot simply exit a construction project at any time without losing substantial amounts of money.

Here, too, a vicious circle develops: uncertainty reduces housing supply, which drives up property prices and rents. These increases are then used to justify new political demands for intervention, creating even more uncertainty.

Alongside healthcare and finance, housing is among the most heavily regulated markets in many countries. It is no coincidence that these are precisely the sectors that experience recurring crises. More regulation increases costs and reduces efficiency.

Across Europe, center-right parties are making the mistake of leaving housing policy to the left instead of making problems such as high rents and housing shortages central issues themselves. They should demonstrate that only sweeping deregulation can substantially expand housing supply. Javier Milei is currently showing exactly how this can be done in Argentina.BIO: In June, Skyhorse Publishing will release Rainer Zitelmann's book "New Space Capitalism."

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 03:30

80% Of New UK Payroll Jobs Since 2014 Went To Foreign Nationals, Think Tank Finds

Just one in five of the roughly 3.7 million jobs added to UK payrolls from 2014 through the end of 2025 went to British nationals. Non-EU nationals took about 2.5 million of them, roughly two-thirds, and EU nationals another 408,000, leaving Britons with 734,000, according to a Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) analysis of HMRC data.

The center-right think tank released the figures Tuesday in State of Dependency, a 250-page report launching its Welfare 2030 inquiry. Former Work and Pensions Secretary Sir Iain Duncan Smith chairs the inquiry.

The CSJ's rounded components add to about 3.64 million against its "approximately 3.7 million" total, so foreign nationals took close to 80% of the growth and Britons about 20%. Britons still hold most of the jobs that exist: HMRC data show 25.6 million Britons among 32 million payrolled workers in December 2025, the Press Association reported.

The shift is recent. Since January 2020, Britons' payroll jobs fell in nine of the UK's 12 regions and nations while non-EU nationals' jobs rose in all 12, the CSJ's regional table shows. Summed across that table, non-EU nationals gained about 2.1 million payroll jobs, Britons lost about 186,000 and EU nationals lost about 352,000. More than four-fifths of the non-EU gain since 2014 therefore came in the last six years of the twelve.

London shows it most sharply. Non-EU payroll jobs there rose by 465,200 since 2020 while Britons' fell by 26,500 and EU nationals' by 171,100. Scotland lost 53,000 British payroll jobs and gained 130,200 non-EU ones; the South East lost 31,700 and gained 284,500. Four sectors account for about two-thirds of the non-EU increase: health and social work (29%), administrative and support services (16%), accommodation and food (12%), and wholesale and retail (10%).

Care shows how the door opened. In the year to March 2023, about 57,700 care and senior care workers received skilled-worker visas, and 99% of sponsored care workers in 2022 came from outside the EU, according to the Migration Observatory. Inflows have since fallen: the ONS put net migration at 171,000 in 2025, from 331,000 a year earlier, with work-related arrivals of non-EU nationals down 47% to about 146,000 after rule changes that included closing the Health and Care route for overseas care workers. The CSJ's payroll window ends in December 2025, so it captures the hiring wave and only part of the 2024 and 2025 restrictions.

The other half of the CSJ's case is welfare. It counts 6.7 million people on at least one out-of-work benefit, about one in six working-age adults, and says out-of-work claimants rose by 2.3 million between February 2020 and November 2025. Working-age benefits are forecast to cost £136.1 billion in 2026/27, up about £50 billion in real terms since 2019/20, and the report identifies 3,369 "welfare hotspots" where claimants outnumber half the working-age population, home to nearly 900,000 people.

A companion CSJ estimate puts the foreign-national share at about 1.85 million non-British adults receiving at least one benefit or the state pension in 2025, at roughly £23 billion, including 1.3 million on Universal Credit at £11.9 billion. Those are CSJ calculations from DWP, HMRC and Home Office data and survey rates, not official statistics, and they assume half the adults in mixed-nationality households are foreign nationals. Earlier estimates ran lower: as we reported, one analysis of government data put welfare paid to migrants at £7.6 billion in a single year.

The report's thesis is that governments swapped one dependency for another. Real GDP grew 26% from 2006 to 2025, but real GDP per person grew only 10%, which the CSJ calls "human quantitative easing": importing workers to lift headline growth. It adds that official fiscal forecasts run only five years, so they bank the early tax take from migrant workers and miss the welfare costs that arrive later. Duncan Smith said "ministers have repeatedly pulled the easy lever of immigration rather than providing a better deal for left behind communities."

He has made the jobs argument before. As work and pensions secretary in July 2011, Duncan Smith told a Madrid audience that businesses should hire unemployed Britons, and Channel 4 noted that 87% of the 400,000 jobs created in the coalition's first year had gone to workers from abroad, a figure unearthed by Labour MP Frank Field. The same caution applies here. The CSJ counts net changes in payrolled jobs by nationality, not who was hired, and a naturalized citizen counts as British. In 2015 the Daily Express claimed 75% of new jobs went to EU migrants; the paper corrected it after economist Jonathan Portes complained and the press regulator IPSO ruled it "significantly misleading," because the ONS data showed net changes in employment, not people entering new jobs.

The report landed a day after Reform UK's Nigel Farage pledged to suspend the asylum system for a full parliament, as we reported.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 02:45

Dutch Minister: Young Locals Can Just Live With Their Parents, Migrants Get Houses First

Via Remix News,

Dutch Housing Minister Elanor Boekholt-O'Sullivan drew sharp criticism this week after defending priority access to scarce social housing for recognized refugees, arguing that many young Dutch first-time home seekers "can still live with their parents."

In an interview with De Telegraaf, the D66 minister was asked why status holders - asylum seekers granted residence permits - should receive preference for social rental homes while Dutch "starters" face long waiting lists and delayed independence. She responded that "we see that a lot of starters can still, or are allowed to, live with their parents."

?? Migrants get affordable housing before Dutch natives. When asked why migrants receive access to affordable housing before young Dutch people looking for a "starter" home, the Dutch housing minister said that many Dutch first-time home seekers "can still live with their parents." Mass migration contributed to 60% of the increase in housing demand in the Netherlands since 2015, yet Minister Elanor Boekholt-O'Sullivan still believes in putting migrants first. "For me, the fundamental principle is that anyone who is allowed to and wants to live in the Netherlands gets a roof over their head," she said. In the Netherlands, Dutch natives are increasingly relegated to living with their parents while migrants get to skip massive waiting lists and gain "emergency" access to cheap social housing. Follow: @RMXnews

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 14, 2026

Dutch commentator and activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek wrote on X that the policy amounted to "systemic racism."

"And not just the 'new' newcomers. A 25-year-old Syrian who came here with his parents years ago jumps the queue for a home when he decides he wants to live on his own. Meaning a 25-year-old white Dutch guy can forget about getting his own place and ends up on waiting lists for 10+ years," she wrote, adding: "Putting the interests of foreigners above the interests of the native population needs to end."

Talking about systemic racism: Young Dutch people can barely find a place to live, because migration drove 60% of the housing demand since 2015, regular prices are insane, and migrants get PRIORITY for the affordable social housing. And not just the "new" newcomers. A 25-year-old Syrian who came here with his parents years ago jumps the queue for a home when he decides he wants to live on his own. Meaning a 25 year-old white Dutch guy can forget about getting his own place and ends up on waiting lists for 10+ years. But according to our minister of housing that's fine because they can just continue to "live with their parents." Putting the interests of foreigners above the interests of the native population, needs to end. That's why with the @SaveEuropeAct, apart from demanding closed borders and Remigration, we also demand ?Removing social welfare incentives and benefits that function as pull factors for migration.

— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) October 13, 2026

Boekholt-O'Sullivan, an Irish-born former lieutenant general in the Dutch Air Force who took office earlier this year, claims that anyone who wants to live in the Netherlands should get a roof but does not address the major housing crisis brought on by mass immigration.

"For me, the fundamental principle is that anyone who is allowed to and wants to live in the Netherlands gets a roof over their head," she said. She noted that status holders typically leave asylum reception centers and argued that alternatives such as remaining in centers, homelessness, hotels or cruise ships were unacceptable, so priority allocation should continue until other solutions exist.

The remarks landed amid fresh data underscoring migration's outsized role in the Netherlands' housing crunch. A report released this week by the Economic Institute for Construction (EIB) found that migration accounted for about 60 percent of additional housing demand between 2015 and 2024. Migrants who arrived in that period occupied roughly 435,000 homes by 2024, out of nearly 700,000 homes added to the stock.

In addition, data shows that migrants occupy 44 percent of the 2.2 million social housing units in the country.

The 44 percent figure of social housing units occupied by first or second-generation immigrants has doubled from 22 percent in 2000, and is forecast to rise to 51 percent by 2030.

A total of 92 percent of Syrian first-generation immigrants reside in social housing. In addition, 90 percent of those born in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Eritrea reside in social housing.

Asylum-related migration contributes disproportionately to lasting demand because status holders remain permanently at high rates, unlike many labor or student migrants who leave within a decade.

Critics said the minister's comments minimized the burdens on young Dutch adults who have already spent years on waiting lists for social housing or who face high private rents and purchase prices that lock them out of independent living.

Social housing waiting lists in major cities often stretch many years; priority rules for status holders allow some recent arrivals to bypass ordinary queues. Dutch population growth in recent years has been driven almost entirely by net migration, amplifying pressure on an already constrained housing market marked by strict planning rules, nitrogen regulations and slow construction.

The latest debate about Dutch housing policy and mass immigration is only one aspect of the massive burden foreigners have been on Dutch society, which shows that Dutch taxpayers have spent €400 billion on migrants between 1995 and 2019.

The landmark study, entitled "Borderless Welfare State: The Consequences of Immigration on Public Finances," shows that net costs of immigration to the Dutch public sector over the period 1995-2019 were an astounding €400 billion, averaging €17 billion a year, with a peak of €32 billion in 2016 due to the 2015 refugee crisis.

However, this is far from the total figure. Since 2019, Dutch taxpayers have paid tens of billions more, with no end in sight.

Tyler Durden Mon, 10/19/2026 - 02:00

Omar, Obama, And The Danger Of False Identities

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

On Columbus Day, Homeland Security Investigations executed a judicially authorized search warrant of Representative Ilhan Omar's home. For several months, there have been rumors that she was under investigation for immigration fraud. A few weeks ago, White House Border Czar Tom Homan acknowledged that the congresswoman was the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro says her office is investigating Omar for potential financial crimes. The D.C. magistrate judge who authorized the search of Omar's residence is a registered Democrat who donated to Hillary Clinton and received professional appointments from other Democrats.

Despite the fact that Democrats wholeheartedly cheered when President Joe Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland authorized FBI agents to use deadly force against the Trump family when they raided his Mar-a-Lago home in 2022 to retrieve evidence of the Department of Justice's unlawful spying operations against Republican politicians during Barack Obama's presidency, the people who repeatedly told us for years that "nobody is above the law" now insist that the raid of Omar's residence is an "abuse of power," "political retribution," and the act of "a fascist police state."

As news of the Omar raid broke, CNN's Jake Tapper called it "vindictive" and questioned whether it was a "legitimate law enforcement action." Tapper's supposedly expert guest - a Democrat lawfare operative - responded to the host's predetermined judgment of the investigation by calling it, "Partisan. Racism. Xenophobia."

Bill Kristol - who, amazingly enough, was once regarded as a trusted public intellectual among Republican voters before revealing himself to have been a complete fraud who lied about almost everything he long claimed to believe - posted this urgent request on X: "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country." When FBI agents were pawing through First Lady Melania Trump's undergarments back in 2022, Kristol encouraged Americans to be patient and to avoid any rush to judgment - even though the criminal targeting of an American president was unprecedented and shocking.

MS NOW's "Justice and Intel Reporter," Ken Dilanian pointed out that most immigrants' naturalization paperwork contains "fudged facts" - essentially arguing that since many foreigners lie to authorities, Omar shouldn't be singled out and prosecuted for committing immigration fraud. This is a rather unjust double standard for a "justice" reporter to articulate given that Americans who "fudge facts" on legal documents are regularly prosecuted for the crimes of misrepresentation, forgery, and fraud.

Unless and until Representative Omar is actually indicted, the public will have to wait to read about the particular facts of her case. It is worth noting, however, that numerous allegations have swirled around the congresswoman for years. Several of her Democrat primary opponents alleged that she had committed immigration fraud on behalf of herself and other members of her family. Public investigations suggest that she falsified her birthdate in order to obtain naturalized citizenship. There have been reports that she married her biological brother as part of a fraudulent scheme to provide him American citizenship. A number of historians claim that Omar's father "misrepresented himself as a refugee" and was instead a military commander in a Somali dictatorship responsible for several hundred thousand murders. The congresswoman insists that her birth records were destroyed during Somalia's civil war (a bloody conflict during which her father may have committed crimes against humanity).

Perhaps we will learn whether these allegations have merit in the months ahead. What I do know is that this inquiry is long overdue. The appearance of impropriety has followed Representative Omar even before she joined Congress in 2019. Allegations of immigration fraud have been loud - including the unsavory claim that she married her brother - yet neither congressional leaders nor federal officials have been inclined to investigate the matter more fully until now. The lack of curiosity and continued silence from authorities have been impossible for the American people to ignore.

Two-tiered justice in the United States has been with us for quite some time. Democrat lawfare drove President Nixon from the White House. President Bill Clinton targeted Christians and gun-owners and reoriented intelligence agencies away from communist organizations that were monitored during the Cold War and toward "right-wing" groups that had never posed a national security threat.

When President Obama took the reins of the federal government, he combined Clinton's targeting of conservatives with President Bush's new domestic surveillance system authorized by the USA PATRIOT Act and maliciously - yet ironically - redefined American patriots as "potential domestic terrorists." Over the course of the Obama and Biden presidencies, Christians, conservatives, libertarians, and Republican voters have been investigated for imaginary "crimes" at the behest of Democrat partisans within the federal government.

When a woman from Somalia can come to the United States and join Congress with less scrutiny than a random American Christian receives for praying outside an abortion clinic or carrying a firearm, the entire government - especially the criminal justice system - loses credibility, if not legitimacy.

Congresswoman Omar is certainly not the first member of the federal government to have been accused of committing identity fraud. Although the corporate "news" oligarchy and the political Establishment did their best to cover up the story, there were serious allegations against Barack Obama, including claims that he was not born an American citizen and was therefore ineligible to become president of the United States. As the propaganda press and the Democrat Party are doing today with regard to claims of immigration fraud against Omar, those institutions have told the American people for two decades that doubting the authenticity of Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate is an act of "racism" and "white supremacy."

However, as investigative researcher "Sundance" over at The Conservative Treehouse has long argued, there is a lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that former CIA Director John Brennan conspired with others to scrub records from federal systems that showed Obama is not exactly who he claims to be.

Back in 2008, Brennan was an intelligence adviser to presidential candidate Obama and the CEO of an intelligence-related consulting group called The Analysis Corporation. That firm was implicated in a breach of the State Department's passport office, when one of Brennan's contract employees accessed the records of Obama, as well as those of Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Brennan's company later released this statement: "This individual's actions were taken without the knowledge or direction of anyone at The Analysis Corp. and are wholly inconsistent with our professional and ethical standards."

The State Department's inspector general later concluded that the hacker specifically sought Obama's passport file and accessed the Clinton and McCain files to create confusion for investigators. What may have been deleted from Obama's files is unknown. At the time of the incident, the Obama campaign denounced the "outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years." Obama appointed Brennan director of the CIA five years later.

Obama also told reporters that any investigation "should be done in conjunction with those congressional committees that have oversight so it's not simply an internal matter." Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden had oversight over the Foreign Service and passport office and was in charge of the investigation into the breach of Obama's records. Obama chose Biden as his vice presidential running mate.

Later, State Department employee Lt. Quarles Harris, Jr. - who apparently penetrated the database and likely scrubbed Obama's records - was found dead. He had been shot twice in the head (described as "execution style"), but his death was ruled a "suicide." Lt. Harris was cooperating with investigators concerning the State Department breach at the time of his death. "Sundance" implicates John Brennan in both Harris's death and the later death of investigative journalist Michael Hastings.

Barack Obama successfully hid his identity. Perhaps Ilhan Omar has John Brennan on retainer, too. We'll see.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 23:30

Putin Proposes Summit With Trump And Xi To Negotiate End Of Ukraine War; Zelensky Not Invited

Amid an escalating war that appears to get farther from any hope of a ceasefire, let alone peace, late on Sunday the WSJ reported that Vladimir Putin has proposed that he, President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping meet next month to talk about Ukraine in an attempt to negotiate an end to the four-year conflict that would favor Moscow.

Citing people familiar with the discussions, the WSJ notes that the plan represents an effort by Putin to capitalize on warming ties between Trump and the Russian leader that have alarmed Ukraine and its allies in Washington and Europe. Such a summit - one notably without the involvement of Zelensky who appears to have terminally alienated Trump in recent days - would be "unprecedented and send alarm bells ringing in European capitals and beyond."

According to a former Russian intelligence officer briefed on the matter, Putin floated the idea in an Oct. 9 phone call with Trump. That conversation also produced a deal for the U.S. to buy Russian diesel fuel and facilitate its sale on the global market. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed that discussions were taking place over a potential meeting. 

“There is no clear understanding yet regarding the meeting itself or its potential agenda, although all three parties acknowledge the hypothetical possibility of such a meeting taking place,” he told The Wall Street Journal.

A senior US official said that while Trump hadn’t agreed to such a summit, he said that the president could be receptive to the idea, given his desire to fulfill a campaign promise to settle the war. Trump had said it would be finished on “day one” of his new term, but he is now approaching nearly two years in office. 

The Kremlin has suggested holding the trilateral dialogue on the sidelines of the coming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, the people familiar with discussions said. That gathering takes place on Nov. 18 and 19 in Shenzhen, the southern Chinese tech hub. 

A potential three-way dialogue on Chinese soil would mark a big step for Xi in his efforts to elevate China’s role as a diplomatic power broker, said analysts who study China. Russian officials proposed the idea to Beijing through diplomatic channels and the Chinese side has indicated it wouldn’t object if Trump is on board.

“China wants to be seen as the pivot of the great powers, and potentially as a mediator between the U.S. and Russia,” said Yun Sun, director of the China program at the Stimson Center, a Washington think tank.

While Putin had unsuccessfully proposed a trilateral summit to both Trump and Xi on previous occasions, this time, however, it comes during a reversal of Moscow’s fortunes with Washington. 

Trump just notched a deal with Putin to get Russian diesel in a bid to lower fuel prices that have slowed the American economy and hurt Republican prospects ahead of the midterm elections. On Friday, Trump halted implementation of sanctions that were to be imposed on Russia under a bipartisan bill he signed last month, drawing criticism from lawmakers, including some of his allies.

The senior White House official said Trump made the decisions after seeing few other good options to lower prices.

At a time when Diesel prices are soaring, in part due to limited Russian exports amid a constant drone campaign waged by Ukraine against its refineries, Trump has shown renewed frustration with Zelensky, saying the Ukrainian leader must stop strikes on Russian refineries and suggesting that the country needs a new president. U.S.-led efforts to broker an end to the war, meanwhile, have been largely stalled.

In a post on Truth Social on Sunday, Trump took aim at Zelensky, following Ukraine’s strike on an oil terminal in Putin’s hometown of St. Petersburg earlier in the day. He accused the Ukrainian leader of targeting Russian diesel refineries and said he “doesn’t want to end this war, and probably never did.” The president said he was holding off on imposing sanctions because he didn’t want to drive Russia away from the bargaining table. “I WANT THIS WAR END!” he wrote. 

According to the WSJ, Moscow sees a potential trilateral dialogue as a way of cementing Russia’s membership in a club of great global powers, a status Putin has sought since he entered the Kremlin in 2000. The format also excludes from the picture Europe, which the Kremlin sees as its main obstacle to clinching victory in Ukraine. 

The former Russian intelligence officer who was the WSJ source, said Putin has broad, if unrealistic, ambitions for the trilateral format as a second Yalta summit, which would divide up the globe into spheres of influence. 

Even if Xi and Trump are unlikely to agree to that, the image of the American, Russian and Chinese leaders negotiating the fate of one nation would be a powerful signal. In Taipei, it could reinforce fears that Taiwan’s own future might be one day bargained over in a similar forum, particularly as Beijing has never renounced the use of force to bring the self-governing democratic island under its control.

That said, a summit isn’t without risk for Xi. Chinese officials have concerns about allowing a geopolitical side show to overshadow their designs to use APEC as a showcase of China’s role in the region, said some of the people close to the discussions.

Xi is attempting to walk a fine line between continuing his support for Putin and maintaining China’s economic ties with Europe, the people said. A trilateral meeting like this could risk drawing China more directly into the Ukraine conflict and provoke a backlash from European capitals already wary of Beijing’s tilt toward Moscow. Although, with most European capitals desperate to either export or import from China, it isn't clear what if anything that can do to express their "outrage."

***

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 22:45

Trump Issues Full-Throated Endorsement Of Netanyahu Ahead Of Tough Election

In what should come as no big surprise at all, President Trump has issued a whole-hearted endorsement for Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday as next Israeli prime minister.

Axios points out, "This is the first time in the history of the U.S.–Israel relations that a U.S. president explicitly and publicly endorsed a candidate in the Israeli elections."

Getty Images

There's a mere nine days to go before the country's Oct.27 elections, and domestically Netanyahu has long been accused of prolonging and escalating conflicts in order to sell himself as the necessary 'wartime president'.

Axios further observes that Trump's endorsement was 'needed' as most polls show Netanyahu's coalition "falling short of the 61 seats needed to form a government."

Trump himself on Truth Social touted Bibi as "a Great Warrior Prime Minister" and a "great partner" in the war against Iran.

"If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work [in Iran] ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so," Trump wrote.

The post is full of lavish praise about how Netanyahu 'thrives' under pressure and that most "normal men and women" would in the same situations "would have wilted under pressure."

Political opponents are lambasting inappropriate 'foreign intervention' while Netanyahu is really soaking in and making the most of Trump's full explicit backing:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned on Sunday that Israel could face a “hostile” US president in two years, emphasizing the need to capitalize on the time remaining in US President Donald Trump’s term.

“There is a window of another two years with President Trump, and one of the questions in these elections is who will work with Trump? Who will complete the remaining work?” Netanyahu said.

The full post:

Early on, after the US launched Operation Epic Fury, a slew of top admin officials including Marco Rubio admitted that the war is happening to defend Israel from the Iranian threat, and focused on preventing Tehran from getting nuclear weapons.

The White House has since tried to downplay it, but this remains the publicly articulated rationale among admin legal and official memos defending the 'legal justification' of the war. A State Department publication issued on April 21 of this year stated firmly: "As the United States has explained in multiple letters to the U.N. Security Council, including most recently on March 10, the United States is engaged in this conflict at the request of and in the collective self-defense of its Israeli ally, as well as in the exercise of the United States’ own inherent right of self-defense."

At this point Trump might need Netanyahu for whatever next rounds of bombing break out, but more importantly Bibi needs Trump. Iranian leaders have warned that if the Islamic Republic comes under direct bombing raids again, Israel would in turn likely face Iran's ballistic missiles once again.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 22:35

Pentagon Plans To Withhold Report on Minab School Massacre Past Midterms

Authored by Dave DeCamp via Antiwar.com,

Bloomberg reported on Thursday that top Pentagon officials have expressed that they will withhold the release of an internal report on the US bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School in Minab, southern Iran, which massacred at least 120 children, through the midterm elections.

According to an earlier Bloomberg investigation into the attack, within hours of the strikes, Pentagon personnel were aware that the US was responsible, but the Trump administration has still not admitted to carrying out the attack.

The new Bloomberg report said that advisors to US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth have conveyed to other Pentagon personnel that the report on the massacre, which found flawed intelligence, outdated imagery, and an overreliance on AI contributed to the attack, will not be shared with the public before the November 3 elections.

Officials said the investigation has been all but complete for several months.

The exact toll in the bombing varies, with Bloomberg putting the number of children killed at 123, while the general prosecutor in Minab said in early April that the final death toll was 156, including 120 students - 73 boys, 47 girls - 26 female teachers, the unborn child of a pregnant teacher, seven parents, a school bus driver, and a technician at a nearby clinic.

Drop Site News recently published an extensive report on the massacre from the perspective of the parents of the people who experienced it, including parents and relatives of children who were killed, children who survived, rescue workers, and teachers.

The massacre is one of the worst US war crimes since the Vietnam War, and it came after Hegseth hollowed out mechanisms meant to reduce civilian harm.

Last month, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced a resolution to impeach Hegseth that included an article about how the Pentagon chief ignored US laws meant to minimize civilian harm and tied it to the bombing of the Shajareh Tayyebeh Elementary School.

"The elementary school was struck after Secretary Hegseth sought to repeal congressionally mandated civilian-protection requirements, dismantled the Department's civilian-harm mitigation infrastructure, removed the senior-most Judge Advocates General responsible for independent legal oversight, stripped civilian protection from the National Defense Strategy, and publicly denigrated legal restraints on military force as obstacles to 'maximum lethality,'" the resolution reads.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 22:10

Egypt Approves Troop Deployment In Support Of Saudi Arabia

Via The Cradle

Egypt announced on Sunday that it has approved the deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia on a "defensive mission" to help the kingdom protect itself from the retaliatory military operations carried out by the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF).

The Egyptian House of Representatives held "an emergency session to discuss the President of the Republic and Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces’ decision to send military forces to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on a defensive mission," said MP Mostafa Bakry.

Source: Egyptian Presidency

"The National Defense Council, chaired by the president, concluded its meeting and approved the deployment of the forces and the mission assigned to them," he added. 

He said that "Egypt has never abandoned its pan-Arab role in protecting Arab national security. For us, Saudi Arabia is part of Egypt’s own national security, and any threat to its security and stability is a threat to us."

On Saturday, Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi called for the authorization of defensive measures in support of Saudi Arabia, which has been waging a brutal war and blockade against Yemen for over a decade.

"Egypt is ready to take any measure Saudi Arabia requests to defend its security and sovereignty," the Egyptian president said. 

The news follows the reported activation of the Mecca Defense Pact between Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkiye.

Pakistani jets have reportedly been striking Yemen, yet Islamabad denied this. Thousands of Pakistani troops are in the kingdom, and Turkiye is also said to be making significant equipment and personnel deployments that are being used against Yemen.

The Ansarallah-led YAF announced it shot down a Saudi attack helicopter in a statement on Sunday, releasing footage of the operation.

The footage shows “the targeting and downing of a Saudi AH-6i attack helicopter with an indigenously manufactured surface-to-air missile while it was carrying out hostile activities off the coast of Najran.” The Saudi-led coalition confirmed that the whole crew was killed.

BREAKING: Egypt is now officially entering the Saudi-Houthi war, with at least two Egyptian Air Force C-130H transport aircraft reportedly landing at King Fahd Air Base in Taif this morning, after Egypt’s National Defence Council, chaired by President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, pledged “all necessary and possible forms of support” to Saudi Arabia, per Reuters. One of the C-130Hs reportedly left Egypt with its transponder switched off. Taif sits in western Saudi Arabia, within reach of the Red Sea coast and the Yemeni border zone, where Houthi activity has been concentrated. This is now escalating into a full-blown regional war.

— The Hormuz Report (@HormuzReport) October 18, 2026

Earlier, Saudi airstrikes hit Hodeidah in western Yemen. According to the YAF, over 2,500 Saudi attacks have been launched against Yemen since the kingdom’s escalation against the country in July.

The Saudi escalation has killed dozens of civilians. In response, Saudi Arabia’s airports, military bases, and energy sites have been under heavy missile and drone fire from the YAF.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 21:20

"They Will All Go To Jail": Trump Threatens California Election Officials If They Let Non-Citizens Vote

On Friday President Donald Trump warned California election officials that they will go to prison if they count mail-in ballots from about 20,000 people who have been identified as possible noncitizens by the federal government, intensifying the legal dispute with the state mere weeks before the midterm elections.

FILE – Ballots are sorted the day after California’s primary election at the LA County Ballot Processing Center, June 3, 2026, in City of Industry, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File)

California's voter registration system relies on applicants attesting to their own citizenship, and county officials argued that the system obligates them to count ballots from registered voters. The Trump administration disagrees.

"They will all go to jail for a long period of time!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social on Oct. 16. He attached a copy of a Justice Department letter to Los Angeles County that promised "significant" consequences for "facilitating or ignoring" noncitizens voting in a federal election.

"The legal consequences for either facilitating or ignoring a federal crime are significant," the letter reads. "Noncitizen voting in a federal election is a federal crime-and knowingly facilitating such conduct is equally unlawful. Under 18 U.S.C. § 611(a), noncitizens are prohibited from voting in any election involving federal offices."

The letter continued:

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, anyone who aids, abets, counsels, induces, or procures the commission of a federal offense is equally liable. If persons knowingly tabulate ballots cast by individuals identified by federal agencies as noncitizens, they risk becoming aiders and abettors to a federal crime. Your assertion that ballots must be counted simply because California's registration system relies on self-attestation does not relieve election officials of their obligations under federal law when they are on actual notice of noncitizen voting. Nor can state procedures supersede federal criminal statutes.

Trump's post followed a week of escalating federal action. Earlier in the week, the DOJ mailed California election officials a USB drive containing voter roll citizenship data, then sent a separate letter with the password needed to open it. According to a report from The Hill, the state had 48 hours to compare 20,000 names that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified as non-U.S. citizens against its own voter rolls.

On Thursday, the DOJ sued California. "If California was unable to independently confirm the citizenship of people on that list, the Federal Government asked that California set aside ballots received from them until the person's citizenship was confirmed," the lawsuit reads.

Under this approach, the state would hold the ballots in question until officials verified the voters' citizenship. The lawsuit does not ask California to discard the ballots outright.

Earlier this year, Trump said California and three other states together had 250,000 noncitizens on their voter rolls. His opponents dispute that number.

California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom called the lawsuit a "sad, desperate attempt by Trump to use his politicized Justice Department to try to suppress California voters just three weeks before Election Day."

"The courts have made clear that the federal government has no role in how a state carries out its election process, and now, in the middle of Californians voting, they have asked local officials - who do a damn good job defending democracy - to violate federal law," Newsom said, but did not specify which federal law he claims the DOJ's request would require local officials to break.

Outside groups have also moved against the administration. In September, the UCLA Voting Rights Project sued the DOJ and DHS, challenging the method the administration used to count noncitizens registered to vote. The group plans to seek a temporary restraining order if the administration does not drop its plans for a criminal crackdown on state officials.

"Your clients' actions in compiling the list violates established law; your efforts to employ this list to systematically purge voters, less than a month before the election, further violates the National Voter Registration Act, among other laws," attorneys for the group claimed in their latest letter to the DOJ.

***

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 20:55

Saudi Arabia At The Breaking Point

Authored by Larry C. Johnson via Sonar 21,

For most of this war, Saudi Arabia has been the shock absorber of the world oil market. When Hormuz closed, Riyadh pushed crude west through the East-West pipeline to Yanbu on the Red Sea and kept at least part of its exports moving. That bypass is now under attack. Ansar Allah has seized islands at the mouth of the Red Sea, declared a "maritime ban" on Saudi shipping and claimed strikes on Saudi airports, and in September drones knocked the East-West pipeline largely out of service. Riyadh blamed that strike on Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. On October 4 a pumping station at Khurais, east of Riyadh, was hit for the first time and the pipeline stopped again.

Karl Miller, whose earlier assessment of the global fuel emergency I have drawn on before, has just completed a new analysis of what this means for Saudi Arabia and for the world. His conclusion is stark: the Gulf's energy system will take far longer and cost far more to rebuild than anyone in Washington is admitting, and Saudi Arabia can no longer be counted on to cover the gap. Here are his key findings.

1. The bypass is the weak point

Miller's starting point is that a pipeline is not a pipe. It is a connected system of pumping stations, power supplies, controls, storage tanks and loading berths, and it is only as strong as its weakest link. The September damage to the East-West pumping stations, the October interruption at Khurais, a fire at the Riyadh energy complex and the disruption of Saudi aviation all hit that system at different points. The pipeline has been partly restored, but Miller warns that permanent equipment losses remain unresolved. Yanbu can be shut down without a single bomb hitting the port: if crude stops arriving, tankers stop loading.

He also cautions against counting damaged stations as if each represented a fixed share of lost capacity. What matters is throughput, and he measures it against a benchmark of 5.8 million barrels a day through the corridor. A complete interruption for seven days would put 40.6 million barrels of movement at risk; for 30 days, 174 million. He stresses that this is a stress calculation, not a claim that the line is fully shut.

2. The rebuild now runs to 2033–2036

In his previous paper Miller set a five-year horizon for rebuilding the damaged Gulf energy complex. He has now extended it to seven to ten years for the most severely damaged, interconnected systems, meaning recovery between roughly October 2033 and October 2036. Partial output will return sooner, but full, reliable operation will not.

The reason is equipment. Large compressors, turbines, high-voltage transformers, specialized pressure vessels and integrated control systems are custom-built and cannot be pulled from a warehouse. His critical path for replacing such a package is 84 months: a year to define the damage and fund the design, three years to procure and manufacture, two years to deliver and install, and a year to commission and stabilize. Insecure sites, financing gaps, factory queues and repeated attacks could add up to three more years. As he puts it, money can reserve a manufacturing slot, but it cannot compress every stage of engineering and fabrication.

3. A bill of $550 billion to $2.28 trillion

Miller models the reconstruction of the wider Gulf energy system, Saudi Arabia included, in three scenarios. He is explicit that these are funding envelopes built on stated assumptions, not audited damage estimates and not a Saudi-only bill.

  Controlled Central Severe Base reconstruction capital $400 bn $800 bn $1,400 bn Execution uplift (security, delays, escalation) $100 bn $280 bn $630 bn Finance and startup liquidity $50 bn $120 bn $250 bn Total funding envelope $550 bn $1.20 trn $2.28 trn

Source: Karl W. Miller, Saudi Arabia: The Breaking Point (12 October 2026). Covers the broader Gulf reconstruction portfolio.

In the central case, $180 billion must be committed in the first two years alone, rising to $540 billion in years three to five. Over seven years that averages more than $170 billion a year. And every Gulf state will be competing for the same manufacturers, engineering firms, fabrication yards and specialist crews. A transformer slot taken by Kuwait or Qatar is one that Saudi Arabia does not get.

4. Delay is expensive

Miller puts numbers on what waiting costs. A three-year delay on the central program could add $76 billion to $125 billion in cost escalation and another $42 billion to $90 billion in financing charges. Meanwhile the fuel must still be bought somewhere: each year that 1 million barrels a day of fuel supply stays offline means 365 million barrels to replace, about $55 billion at his illustrative price of $150 a barrel. Leaving his full 3 million barrel-a-day gap unrepaired for three more years implies nearly $500 billion in replacement purchases.

5. The diesel gap gets wider

Miller's baseline remains a minimum global shortfall of 3 million barrels a day of diesel and jet fuel. The Saudi attacks threaten to push it higher. If disruption leaves 1 million barrels a day of crude unable to reach working refineries, the loss of diesel and jet fuel is roughly 300,000 to 450,000 barrels a day. An additional net loss of 500,000 barrels a day would raise his baseline to 3.5 million, an increase of one-sixth, adding 15 million barrels of shortfall every month.

He is careful not to double count: lost crude, the refinery output it would have produced and the missed export cargo may all be the same barrels. But the direction is clear. Saudi Arabia was the Gulf's main source of relief. If its bypass is unreliable, the global deficit grows.

6. America cannot fill the hole

Miller's test of American capacity is sobering. Over the four weeks to October 2, US refineries produced about 5.17 million barrels a day of distillate, exported 1.56 million and used 3.77 million at home. Replacing a 3 million barrel-a-day gap from the United States alone would require 58% more distillate output than American refineries produce today. US production is only about 150,000 barrels a day higher than a year ago; the global gap is nearly 20 times that. Promising more exports does not create more fuel. It simply moves the shortage from one buyer to another and drains American inventories.

7. Food, freight and flights

The fuel crisis is already reaching the real economy. Cereal prices are 17.2% higher than a year ago. Farmers need diesel before the harvest pays, truckers before their invoices are settled, and refrigeration before food reaches the shelf. Airlines need certified jet fuel at the airports they serve, and diesel cannot substitute for it. Miller's warning is that the weakest buyers, countries short of foreign exchange and credit, will not just pay more. They will be priced out entirely.

My take

Miller's assessment confirms what I have been arguing for months: the energy damage from this war is not a temporary price spike that ends when a ceasefire is signed. Reopening a shipping lane does not rebuild a refinery. Saudi Arabia, which only months ago was the world's insurance policy, is now itself a source of risk, and its economy shows it: Saudi oil activity fell by a quarter in the second quarter and GDP shrank 4.8%. The rebuilding of the Gulf will be measured in years and trillions of dollars, and the world will be short of diesel for much of that time.

That should be the frame for every promise coming out of Washington, whether it is Russian diesel, export bans or claims that prices are about to fall. As Miller concludes, recovery will be proven by fuel actually delivered, not by repairs announced or by a lower headline price.

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 20:10

X Gets "Stronger" As Threads And Bluesky Quarantine The "Worst People On The Internet"

Meta Platforms' Threads and rival Bluesky have devolved into far-left echo chambers that some describe as platforms for the clinically insane, where intelligent conversations are severely lacking and discussions become shouting matches among those suffering from "Trump Derangement Syndrome" and infected by the woke mind virus.

Democrats flee X for Bluesky amid Musk-Trump alliance https://t.co/ZoW1VemR69

— The Hill (@thehill) November 23, 2024

That concentration of left-wing lunatics on Threads and Bluesky may be strengthening X's competitive position, making it more attractive to professional users and youngsters seeking competing viewpoints and substantive conversations across the political spectrum and about current trends in the real world. 

Nikita Bier, who most recently led X's product development, took to X over the weekend to explain that "Threads was an existential risk to X" last year, but that the threat has largely dissipated.

Bier explains: 

Last year I thought Threads was an existential risk to X.

When Meta puts its full weight behind something, by injecting the app into Instagram, it's DEFCON 5:

You have to squeeze out every last drop of growth from all available surfaces to save the app.

However, I started to realize that the opposite was happening:

It was strengthening X.

If you look at any announcement by Zuck, you will see the most rude & toxic comments on the internet.

But when he makes those same announcements on X, people are thrilled about how he's pushing humanity forward. X is a place where people are excited about the future, so it's no surprise he and his top lieutenants are using it more than their own app.

Threads, and Bluesky, have effectively quarantined some of the worst people on the internet.

And so I had an epiphany: those apps are X's anti-abuse systems.

Last year I thought Threads was an existential risk to X. When Meta puts its full weight behind something -- by injecting the app into Instagram, it’s DEFCON 5: You have to squeeze out every last drop of growth from all available surfaces to save the app. However, I started to realize that the opposite was happening: It was strengthening X. If you look at any announcement by Zuck, you will see the most rude & toxic comments on the internet. But when he makes those same announcements on X, people are thrilled about how he’s pushing humanity forward. X is a place where people are excited about the future, so it’s no surprise he and his top lieutenants are using it more than their own app. Threads — and Bluesky — have effectively quarantined some of the worst people on the internet. And so I had an epiphany: those apps are X’s anti-abuse systems.

— Nikita Bier (@nikitabier) October 17, 2026

Bier's revelation comes one week after he cited what appears to be internal X data that shows Bluesky users have been "coming back to X in droves the last few weeks." 

Elon Musk responded to our note on this development, confirming it as "true." 

@zerohedge True

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2026

Let's take a stroll down memory lane and remind readers that PR firms and corporate media ran an information campaign centered around the key phrase "Twitter Killer" when Bluesky really gained traction in 2023. 

However, that information operation gained limited traction. 

X has challenged globalist corporate media's role as the primary gatekeeper of information, shifting influence toward the accounts and networks users choose to follow. Its appeal extends to discussions, where competing voices across the political spectrum can have civilized conversations and challenge prevailing narratives. Threads and Bluesky have struggled to replicate X's ecosystem, as it has merely become a 'safe space' for left-wing extremism. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 10/18/2026 - 18:00