Speak Your Mind 2 Cents at a Time
Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,
California Republicans on Aug. 25 filed a second legal challenge against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s congressional redistricting plan, which will go before voters as Proposition 50 in November.
The lawsuit argued that the plan violates the state Constitution, which requires that maps be drawn by the politically neutral California Citizens Redistricting Commission.
“This is an issue about good governance in the state of California,” Corrin Rankin, chairwoman of the California Republican Party, said at a press conference announcing the legal action. “Californians deserve to have the right to choose our legislators.”
Prop. 50, authorized after the California Legislature quickly passed legislation to approve the Nov. 4 ballot measure, will ask voters to accept a temporary overriding of the independent commission.
Newsom and state Democrats say the move is meant to counter efforts in Texas to change maps in Republicans’ favor.
The Texas plan would strengthen Republicans’ position in five congressional districts currently held by Democrats. President Donald Trump voiced support for redistricting in the Lone Star State and other Republican states, such as Florida and Ohio.
Texas Republicans said their redistricting proposal is legally justified and is needed to correct problems with existing districts in response to a letter by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in early July.
The DOJ said that some Texas districts may be “coalition districts” drawn based on racial demographics to form a majority by combining minority groups and thus violate the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.
Democrats said the plan to redraw the districts unfairly targets districts led by black and Latino lawmakers and undermines decades of progress under the Voting Rights Act.
Newsom and California Democrats have described their plan as “fighting fire with fire” against Texas Republicans. If approved by voters, it would threaten seats on the U.S. House of Representatives currently held by five California Republicans.
Republicans on Aug. 25 filed an emergency petition before the state’s high court against the California Legislature and California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.
“The Constitution’s guardrails on redistricting are essential to ensuring that Californians are spared from the political influence and inherent turbulence of perpetual map-drawing in the hands of the Legislature,” the lawsuit read.
California Republicans already filed one lawsuit against Prop. 50, citing rules requiring a 30-day review period for new legislation before lawmakers can act on it. The suit was shot down by the state’s Supreme Court.
The second lawsuit challenges the measure on constitutional grounds.
In 2008, California voters backed the creation of the Citizens Redistricting Commission through an amendment to the state’s constitution, and the independent body is popular among both parties in the state.
A Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab poll found that 64 percent backed the independent commission, and only 36 percent supported returning authority over the process to state legislators.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s main campaign arm, also accused Newsom of violating the California Constitution.
Trump on Monday raised the possibility in comments to reporters that his administration could also bring suit against California’s redistricting push.
In a post on X, Newsom responded in all capital letters, “Bring it.”
Three California Republicans—U.S. Reps. Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Ken Calvert—are particularly endangered by the change, as their districts are on track to be inundated by voters who backed Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.
Kiley has criticized both Texas and California’s efforts at mid-decade redistricting. A bill introduced by the congressman would ban mid-decade redistricting entirely.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 17:40YouTube took the liberty to make so-called "enhancements" to videos without notifying or seeking permission from creators, according to a report.
Among the creators who had content altered was musician Rick Beato, who told the BBC that he first noticed the changes when he watched his own videos.
"I was like 'man, my hair looks strange', Beato recalled. "And the closer I looked it almost seemed like I was wearing makeup.” said Beato, whose channel does deep dives into the music industry and boasts over 5 million subscribers. "I thought, 'am just I imagining things?’"
BBC reports:
It turns out, he wasn't. In recent months, YouTube has secretly used artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak people's videos without letting them know or asking permission. Wrinkles in shirts seem more defined. Skin is sharper in some places and smoother in others. Pay close attention to ears, and you may notice them warp. These changes are small, barely visible without a side-by-side comparison. Yet some disturbed YouTubers say it gives their content a subtle and unwelcome AI-generated feeling.
There's a larger trend at play. A growing share of reality is pre-processed by AI before it reaches us. Eventually, the question won't be whether you can tell the difference, but whether it's eroding our ties to the world around us.
Beato’s colleagues, including fellow music YouTuber Rhett Shul, also noticed that his content had been tweaked by the Google-owned video platform.
"The more I looked at it, the more upset I got,” Shull said. "If I wanted this terrible over-sharpening I would have done it myself. But the bigger thing is it looks AI-generated. I think that deeply misrepresents me and what I do and my voice on the internet. It could potentially erode the trust I have with my audience in a small way. It just bothers me.”
Shull was so furious about the issue that he posted a video on the subject.
In response to the controversy, YouTube came (somewhat) clean in a post on X.
"We're running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video)," admitted Rene Ritchie, who lead’s YouTube's editorial and creator liaison division. "YouTube is always working on ways to provide the best video quality and experience possible, and will continue to take creator and viewer feedback into consideration as we iterate and improve on these features."
No GenAI, no upscaling. We're running an experiment on select YouTube Shorts that uses traditional machine learning technology to unblur, denoise, and improve clarity in videos during processing (similar to what a modern smartphone does when you record a video)
— YouTube Liaison (@YouTubeInsider) August 20, 2025
YouTube is always… https://t.co/vrojrRGwNw
Eh, really?
Hi!
— YouTube Liaison (@YouTubeInsider) August 20, 2025
Here's some additional context:https://t.co/6utv6heP0L
Some researchers fear that this type of technology could have widespread dystopian effects.
"You can make decisions about what you want your phone to do, and whether to turn on certain features. What we have here is a company manipulating content from leading users that is then being distributed to a public audience without the consent of the people who produce the videos,” Samuel Woolley of University of Pittsburgh said. "I think using the term 'machine learning' is an attempt to obscure the fact that they used AI because of concerns surrounding the technology. Machine learning is in fact a subfield of artificial intelligence."
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 17:20Authored by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute,
After four years of unnecessarily confrontational foreign policy under President Biden, Americans elected Donald Trump in part for his promise to put America first at home and overseas. He promised a war-weary America that he would start no new wars and would get us out of the existing ones.
Eight months into his second Administration it appears his promise remains to be fulfilled, as his approval rating continues to slip.
On Ukraine, President Trump wisely observed coming into office that the conflict is “Joe Biden’s war” not his own. Unfortunately he could not resist the temptation to get involved in the conflict, even under the guise of “peacemaker.” I’ve often said that getting out of conflicts overseas is not that complicated: we should just come home. Even when there are no troops involved, “just come home” means disengage from the conflict. But President Trump wants to play referee in the war while arming and supporting one side. Is it any wonder he is making no progress in ending the war?
Likewise with Israel and Gaza, Trump’s promise to put America first has faltered. President Biden put Americans on the hook for additional billions of dollars to support Israel’s actions in Gaza without even a word about the slaughter and destruction. As more Americans become disgusted by Israel’s obliteration of the property and population of that tiny strip of land, Trump shows no signs of shifting from Biden’s approach. More money and more weapons are sent as starvation claims more and more children each day. Trump has reportedly remarked to a donor that his own base is turning against him because of his Israel policy. Yet he refuses to alter course and “just come home.”
Trump has even returned to the failed Latin America policy of his first Administration, in last week’s move toward a military confrontation with oil-rich Venezuela.
Trump sent two warships and 4,000 US troops to the waters near Venezuela under the highly suspect accusation that the country’s president is actually head of an international drug cartel. He should have learned from the almost comical recognition of Juan Guaido as the real president of Venezuela in his first term that meddling in that country is not in America’s interest. It seems the neocons around him, including warhawk Marco Rubio, are sucking him into another unnecessary conflict.
Add in Trump’s military attacks on Yemen and Iran and the balance sheet thus far does not point to an “America first” foreign policy.
There is still time for President Trump to change course and fulfill his promises to the American people. Put Ukraine and Russia on notice that from this point the US is withdrawing from any role in the conflict. Let the Europeans work it out if they feel it is in their interest. Getting us out of NATO is also a good idea.
End US financial and military support for an Israel that cannot seem to get along with its neighbors.
Perhaps without the US backstopping Israel’s warmongering, the country and its leadership would start to reflect on the wisdom of starting wars with multiple countries in its neighborhood.
Stop trying to overthrow Venezuela’s Maduro and everyone else the neocons have placed on the “hit list.”
End all sanctions and open up trade instead. Maduro’s failed socialist economic policies will be his undoing, not American sanctions or saber-rattling.
America first above all means “just come home.” It’s that simple.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 17:00The systematic and engineered destruction of Europe through "multicultural" invasion is heartbreaking to watch. It is clear, beyond any doubt, that this program spearheaded by progressive politicians (and fake conservative politicians) is designed to crush the spirits of predominantly white, native born citizens still retaining a sense of national pride and cultural heritage. That is to say, they have become the targets of a government funded terror campaign to subjugate the west.
Starting around 2014, millions of third world migrants have been allowed to flood into Europe's borders, often encouraged by globalist NGOs, the UN and leftist political leaders within the host countries. The effects of this decade long campaign have been devastating.
Violent crime has skyrocketed and migrant "grooming gangs" have spread, targeting underage girls for sexual exploitation. Rape has become a common problem, which local governments have chosen to ignore.
Just this week an American man visiting Dresden, Germany was stabbed in the face while bravely preventing two migrants from assaulting a pair of women on a tram. One of the man's attackers, a Syrian refugee, was arrested by police and then immediately released by prosecutors back onto the streets.
And so the story is repeated, over and over again. European elites invite third world migrants, largely military age men, into their borders in the name of progressive multiculturalism. The migrants then attack the native population because their culture tells them Europeans are cattle to be farmed. Whenever a European dares to speak up or defend themselves, they are slapped down by officials or arrested. The population slowly becomes apathetic, passive and easier to control because they have no recourse but silence.
At bottom, the migrants are merely an ugly symptom of a bigger disease; the source of the problem is the political oligarchy that is facilitating the multicultural agenda.
Yet another example occurred in Scotland this week with the arrest of a 14-year-old girl who went viral on social media after defending another girl from a migrant man stalking them on video. The teen can be seen pulling out a kitchen knife and a hatchet and screaming at the man to leave them alone.
She warns the migrant man "Don't touch my sister, she's fucking 12..."
BREAKING - Police have arrested and charged a 14-year-old girl after she was forced to brandish a knife to defend herself and her friend against a migrant who attempted to assault her near St Ann’s Lane in Dundee, Scotland. pic.twitter.com/odBjzIZugA
— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) August 25, 2025
Now, that same girl has reportedly been arrested by Scottish authorities for "brandishing a bladed weapon". It is illegal in the UK to carry almost any self defense tool and knives over three inches are banned from personal carry. These laws never seem to apply to migrants, of course, leaving native law abiding citizens helpless against armed attackers.
UK media coverage conveniently leaves out any mention of the migrant man when reporting on the arrest. Details of the arrest are thin and the incident raises many question. The apparent mother of one of the teens present at the scene claims that the man and another woman were sexually propositioning a young girl when she intervened. The migrants then allegedly attacked her and that is when the weapons came out.
It's clear from the footage that the migrant was following the girls, filming them and refusing to leave when they ask him to go away. It's hard to come up with a justification for his behavior, but we're sure the UK media will find a way. The fact that the migrant man was willing to film the altercation suggests he believes he is protected while the girls are not. He may be right.
If the man had been white and Scottish, the teen would likely have been held up as a hero. Instead, she faces prosecution. And this is how you know mass immigration is a malicious agenda, not a sincere humanitarian effort.
The migrant issue is only becoming worse, even as European citizens become more aware and more vocal. In the Netherlands, a 17-year-old Dutch girl was recently assaulted and murdered by a 22-year-old "asylum seeker" while walking the streets of Amsterdam. She was followed and then stabbed to death while trying to call police.
The Dutch media proceeded to cover up the event by turning it into a story on "male violence against women" instead of what it really was, a story about migrant violence against European women.
A 17 y/o Dutch girl was brutally murdered by an asylum seeker last Tuesday night.
— Eva Vlaardingerbroek (@EvaVlaar) August 24, 2025
In response the entire Dutch establishment is screaming bloody murder about "the patriarchy" and "femicide".
All to deflect from the real issue here: anti-white violence committed by migrants. pic.twitter.com/nZRSRZhDR4
Consider for a moment what might have happened to those Scottish girls had one of them not been armed. The fact that a child felt the need to carry a knife and a hatchet just to walk around her neighborhood is a testament to the downfall of the UK and the rest of Europe. The fact that she has been arrested for warding off a migrant man, a man who refused to leave her alone and who should never have been allowed into the country to begin with, is a testament to the corruption at the heart of European decay.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 16:40Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,
White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller told reporters Monday that the Trump administration has uncovered a “massive scandal” in Washington D.C. involving the doctoring of crime statistics.
He said the alleged corruption is currently under investigation and said details of the corruption will soon be brought to light.
“The results will stun you,” he said.
Miller made the remarks in the Oval Office after President Trump signed a slew of new executive orders to end cashless bail throughout the United States and in the District of Columbia, prosecute the burning of the American flag, and additional measures to address crime in Washington D.C.
Miller said D.C. already had the worst crime statistics in the United States when “honestly measured,” but those stats “dramatically understated how bad it was.”
The White House advisor told reporters that murders and homicides were allegedly being reported as accidents instead of murders.
“This is how severe the manipulation of the crime data has been in the city and it will all be uncovered and it will all be brought to light,” he said.
For the past two weeks—since the D.C. crime crackdown began—the city has not seen a single murder or homicide.
“No police officer working in the city can remember a time in their lives when there has been no murders," Miller asserted.
He said police officers have told him that members of the public have been thanking them for making D.C safe again.
“For the first time in their lives, they can use the parks, they can walk on the streets, you have people who can walk freely at night without worrying about being ribbed or mugged,” he said. “They’re wearing their watch again, they’re wearing jewelry again, they’re carrying purses again.”
Miller explained that D.C. residents had been forced to “change their who lives for fear of being murdered, mugged or carjacked.”
He added that Trump had freed the 700,000 residents of the city from “the rule of criminals and thugs.”
Miller credited Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Terrance C. Cole with discovering that street criminals in Washington D.C. have been “doing business directly with the transnational criminal cartels,” which are foreign terrorist organizations.
“So not only was the city being run by these criminal thugs, but they were working with some of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on the planet to traffic weapons and drugs into this city,” he explained.
“What we are uncovering every day is shocking to us and we look forward to sharing the results with all of you but President Trump, your leadership has uncovered some of the great public safety scandals of our life and now because of you, people are safe and free for the first time ever in this city,” he concluded.
Vice President JD Vance questioned why Democrats are so outraged over Trump’s efforts to reduce crime in the nation’s capital since the results have been so positive.
“I want to echo something the president said where you say there haven’t been murders in a couple of weeks in D.C., and it doesn’t sound good, but then you talk to local law enforcement, and I didn’t realize this, that this town averaged one murder every other day for the last 20, 30 years,” Vance began.
“Which means that in two short weeks, the president and the team have saved 6 or 7 lives. People who would have been killed on the streets of D.C., who are now living, breathing, spending time with their families because the president had the willpower to say no more,” he continued.
Vance took a shot at the Democrat governors who are fighting Trump’s D.C. crime crackdown.
“Look at Governor Pritzker in Illinois or Governor Newsom in Los Angeles, or Governor Moore in Maryland,” the Vice President said. “They are angrier about the fact that the president of the United States is offering to help them get their crime under control than they are about the fact that murderers are running roughshod over their cities and have been for decades.”
He added: “Why are Democrat governors angrier about federal law enforcement helping clean up their streets than they are about the fact that those streets need to be cleaned up to begin with?”
Vance diagnosed their twisted priorities as “a real sickness in the head.”
“I think most Democrats rank and file, nobody likes crime. Republicans don’t like crime. Democrats don’t like crime. Independents don’t like crime,” he told reporters, adding, “Why are Democratic governors doing everything in their power to make crime easier to do in their cities?”
Vance said it made no sense to him, but regardless, he appreciated Trump’s efforts to clean up America’s streets for its citizens.
Patrick Yoes, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, issued the following statement today supporting Trump’s executive orders addressing cashless bail:
“The National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) represents over 382,000 law enforcement officers across the United States as well as the major law enforcement agencies responding to the crime crisis in the District of Columbia, including the officers serving in Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, Metro Transit Police Department, U.S. Capitol Police, and the U.S. Park Police.
“Today, we are proud to announce our full support for President Trump’s Executive Order addressing the dangers of cashless bail systems. Our officers understand the real-world consequences of policies that prioritize leniency over accountability, usually at the expense of community safety and the rule of law.
“This Executive Order is a critical step forward in restoring balance to D.C.’s criminal justice system by curbing the reckless implementation of cashless bail reforms that have allowed repeat offenders to evade any meaningful consequences for their criminality. We commend the Administration for recognizing the importance of deterrence in preventing crime and protecting our neighborhoods by ensuring that those who pose a genuine threat to public safety aren’t back on the street after completing a little paperwork.
“Law enforcement officers spend every single shift in harm’s way while protecting our communities. The citizens of D.C. cannot afford policies that undermine their efforts by releasing dangerous individuals back into society without sufficient safeguards. The FOP urges all D.C. stakeholders—legislators, judges, and community leaders—to join us in championing this Executive Order as a vital measure to help protect our nation’s capital.”
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 16:20Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) on Monday sent a subpoena to the estate of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein for documents and communications that it may have in its custody.
The Oversight panel’s subpoena, signed by Comer, shows the committee is seeking records that could shed light on Epstein’s activities, while the panel said that it is trying to obtain a book that was allegedly prepared by his former girlfriend and associate Ghislaine Maxwell—who is currently serving out a 20-year prison term—for Epstein’s 50th birthday.
The Epstein estate is registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
“It is our understanding that the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein is in custody and control of documents that may further the Committee’s investigation and legislative goals. Further, it is our understanding the Estate is ready and willing to provide these documents to the Committee pursuant to a subpoena,” Comer said in a statement on Monday in announcing the subpoena.
According to the subpoena, the committee is requesting “any document or record that could be reasonably construed to be a potential list of clients involved in sex, sex acts, or sex trafficking facilitated” by Epstein.
It is also requesting “all documents and communications related or referring to Mr. Jeffrey Epstein’s missed phone call logs or missed visitor logs” between January 1990 and Aug. 19, 2019, the date of his death.
Other information requested by Comer’s office include “all entries from Mr. Jeffrey Epstein’s address/contact books, one reportedly referred to as a ‘Black Book,’ from January 1, 1990 through August 10, 2019,” as well as “all flight logs of arrival and/or departure for all aircraft, including helicopters, owned, rented, leased, operated, or used by” Epstein from that same time period.
The letter also demands that the estate provide documents such as his last will and testament, agreements with prosecutors, any financial transactions and holdings, and any non-disclosure agreements that Epstein may have signed.
In the letter, Comer wrote to the executors of Epstein’s estate—attorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn—and told them that the panel is also “reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government’s investigation of Mr. Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell, the circumstances and subsequent investigations of Mr. Epstein’s death, the operation of sex-trafficking rings and ways for the federal government to effectively combat them, and potential violations of ethics rules related to elected officials.”
The Oversight Committee in August sent a subpoena to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for records on the Epstein case. Additionally, the panel has sent subpoenas to multiple former high-ranking U.S. officials.
Comer’s subpoena comes as the DOJ released hundreds of pages of transcripts from recent interviews that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche conducted with Maxwell about her dealings and Epstein.
The Epoch Times has contacted Indyke for comment.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 15:45Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,
The Department of Defense (DOD) is weighing taking equity stakes in defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin and others, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in an interview on Tuesday.
Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Lutnick was asked about whether the Trump administration would attempt to acquire equity stakes in companies, days after the U.S. government acquired 10 percent of Intel stock for around $9.5 billion.
“Oh, there’s a monstrous discussion about defense,” Lutnick said in response, adding that Lockheed is now “basically an arm of the U.S. government” because it makes most of its revenue through federal contracts.
“But what’s the economics of that? I’m going to leave that to my secretary of defense and the deputy secretary of defense,“ he said, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and his deputy, Steve Feinberg. “These guys are on it and they’re thinking about it.”
The current situation with defense contractors “has been a giveaway” by the federal government, Lutnick said, adding that the administration is also considering a significant overhaul in the DOD’s appropriations.
Lockheed Martin manufactures the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon, the F-22 Raptor, Patriot missiles, the C-130 transport plane, and numerous other assets used by the U.S. military.
Other major defense contractors include Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics, and RTX, formerly called Raytheon.
On Monday, President Donald Trump signaled that he wants the U.S. government to hash out more deals like the one it made with Intel, telling reporters at the White House, “I hope I’m going to have many more cases like it.”
Trump said in a social media post on Monday that he would help companies that make similar deals with U.S. states, but he did not provide further details.
The move was not without criticism, including from Republicans. In a post on X, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) wrote that “if socialism is government owning the means of production, wouldn’t the government owning part of Intel be a step toward socialism?”
“I don’t care if it’s a dollar or a billion-dollar stake,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) said in a video interview this week with journalist Major Garrett.
“That starts feeling like a semi state-owned enterprise a la CCCP,” he said, referring to the acronym for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR in English.
Lutnick responded to Paul’s concerns on Monday, telling Fox News’ Laura Ingraham that the deal “is not socialism” and would “take care of the American taxpayer.”
In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Aug. 22, Intel warned it may receive negative sentiment from investors, employees, and others in response to the U.S. government taking a 10 percent stake in the company.
“There could be adverse reactions, immediately or over time, from investors, employees, customers, suppliers, other business or commercial partners, foreign governments or competitors,” it stated in the filing. “There may also be litigation related to the transaction or otherwise and increased public or political scrutiny with respect to the Company.”
Intel also warned that the deal could impact sales overseas.
“The Company’s non-US business may be adversely impacted by the US Government being a significant stockholder. Sales outside the US accounted for 76 percent of the Company’s revenue for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2024,” it said. “Having the US Government as a significant stockholder of the Company could subject the Company to additional regulations, obligations or restrictions, such as foreign subsidy laws or otherwise, in other countries.”
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 15:05Dialog, the exclusive forum co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel and entrepreneur Auren Hoffman, is planning a permanent Washington headquarters as the PayPal co-founder's investment portfolio gains deeper federal government ties through companies like Palantir.
The invitation-only network is scouting real estate to build a "campus in the D.C. suburbs," according to reports, marking a strategic expansion into the nation's political center.
"Dialog, often compared to a tech-era Bilderberg, has quietly become one of the most elite, and mysterious, gatherings for CEOs, elected officials, and intellectual heavyweights," Axios reports.
The move comes as Thiel's influence in government circles has grown substantially, driven by lucrative federal contracts secured by his portfolio companies. Palantir, the data analytics firm he co-founded, has become a key supplier to U.S. intelligence and defense agencies.
A source with ties to Dialog told Axios that the permanent facility reflects "rising demand for quieter reflection in an always-on world. Dialog bills itself as offering global elites the chance to talk candidly across ideological lines, away from their phones and the pressures of social media, the news media, and their stakeholders."
The forum's secretive nature appears to be a selling point. "Given declining trust in institutions and anti-establishment fervor," the source added, "the group actively keeps its inner workings secretive and hidden from public scrutiny." The network's "secretive nature allows participants to share controversial and concerning ideas that they would not be comfortable sharing elsewhere."
Dialog has hosted events in the U.S. and Italy and is planning satellite gatherings in the Middle East and other locations, signaling global ambitions beyond its Washington expansion.
The forum attracts a bipartisan roster of power players, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, KKR & Co. co-founder Henry Kravis, and Maryland Governor Wes Moore. Other participants include Senator Cory Booker, former White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
As the late, great comedian George Carlin once famously said: It's a big club and you ain't in it.
* * *
10 of these just showed up... Grab yours now by clicking on the pic!
Tyler Durden
Tue, 08/26/2025 - 14:40 This week saw Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky boast for the first time that his military can conduct long-range strikes on Russian territory using weapons made within Ukraine, and this means he doesn't need to coordinate these attacks with the United States.
His remarks came in response to a Wall Street Journal report claiming that the US has quietly established a process requiring the Pentagon's prior approval for Ukrainian long-range strikes using American-supplied weapons. This policy has reportedly blocked such strikes for several months, at a moment President Trump is trying to get the sides to the peace table.
AP/Guardian: A Flamingo cruise missile being readied by Ukrainian workers for the company Fire Point.
An unnamed official cited by the WSJ said that since late spring this internal Pentagon approval process has effectively blocked Ukraine from using the Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to hit targets inside Russia.
While speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney earlier this week, Zelensky emphasized that no such restrictions were under discussion and declared that Ukraine uses its own weapons for attacks on Russian territory.
"At the moment, we are using our long-range domestically produced weapons, and we haven’t been discussing such matters with the US lately. There was a time when there were different signals regarding our retaliatory strikes after their (Russian) attacks on our energy system," Zelensky said.
This followed Zelensky last Thursday unveiling the 'Flamingo' cruise missile, reported in The Guardian as follows:
Ukraine’s president announced the huge missile, known as Flamingo, could strike targets as far as 3,000km (1,864 miles) away. “The missile has undergone successful tests. It is currently our most successful missile,” Zelenskyy told reporters. Mass production could begin by February, he added.
This kind of range would bring the Moscow area within striking distance. If Kiev decides to target the Russian capital with cruise missiles - this would likely cause Putin order that Kiev get pounded even harder.
Throughout well over three years of grinding war, the Russian military has still not directly targeted top-level government buildings in Kiev, or military and intelligence HQs there. That could all soon change.
Business Insider on test-firing video of the Flamingo: I"n the clip, the Flamingo is seen rail-mounted on a canted platform before it is fired. The missile starts climbing upward almost immediately after launch."
Certainly the White House wants to see some kind of peace deal take effect before things escalate to that point, but neither side appears in the mood for compromise. And given Russia has the clear battlefield momentum, it has little reason to back off Putin's maximal conditions.
* * *
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 14:05Find it at ZeroHedge Store - on sale for a limited time: https://t.co/Tp6pmBpE4Z
— ZeroHedge Store (@ZeroHedgeStore) August 25, 2025
Click on graph for larger image.
The second graph shows the seasonal factors for the Case-Shiller National index since 1987. The factors started to change near the peak of the bubble, and really increased during the bust since normal sales followed the regular seasonal pattern - and distressed sales happened all year.
Authored by Victoria Freedman via The Epoch Times,
YouTube said on Monday that several Fox channels could become unavailable on YouTube TV if the two companies do not reach a deal by Aug. 27.
Google-owned YouTube said in a blog post that it is negotiating to renew its deal to carry Fox channels, but said the media company is asking for fees “far higher” than those paid to other partners offering similar content.
“If we are unable to reach a new agreement by 5 PM ET on August 27, 2025, Fox channels, including Fox Sports, Business, and News, would become unavailable on YouTube TV. Content from these channels saved in your library would also become unavailable at this time,” the company said.
The video streaming platform said its priority is to ensure a deal that is fair for both companies, and that does not pass on additional costs to subscribers.
YouTube added that should Fox content become unavailable for an extended period of time, it would provide subscribers with a $10 credit. Users will also be able to watch Fox content by signing up for Fox’s streaming service, Fox One, YouTube said.
YouTube has partnerships with content providers such as Fox, Paramount, and CNN to offer their channels through its subscription-based streaming service, YouTube TV.
Fox Corporation said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times on Tuesday: “While FOX remains committed to reaching a fair agreement with Google’s YouTube TV, we are disappointed that Google continually exploits its outsized influence by proposing terms that are out of step with the marketplace.
“We are alerting FOX viewers who are YouTube TV subscribers that they could lose access to much of their favorite news, sports, entertainment and local station programming unless Google engages in a meaningful way soon.”
The corporation launched the website KeepFox.com to keep viewers updated on the progress of negotiations. On the website, it highlights that YouTube TV customers “could be deprived of some of the fall’s biggest television sporting events,” including NFL and College Football on FOX, if the partnership expires.
Paramount Global Renews PartnershipIn February, YouTube TV and Paramount Global—which owns channels including CBS, Comedy Central, MTV, and Nickelodeon—renewed their partnership, after negotiations had earlier stalled.
In a statement provided to The Epoch Times, a Paramount spokesperson said at the time that the company looked forward to extending its “long-standing partnership,” and continuing to give subscribers access to their favorite programming.
“We are pleased to announce a renewed Paramount-Google agreement for the continued carriage of Paramount’s leading portfolio of entertainment, news, and sports networks across YouTube TV’s platform,” the statement said.
Paramount previously cited “one-sided terms” and “non-market demands” as the main reasons for stalled negotiations.
In the past, YouTube TV has faced other contract distribution disagreements, including a two-day blackout in a dispute with Disney in 2021 that revoked subscriber access to channels such as ABC, ESPN, and FX.
Growth of StreamingAccording to a February 2024 letter from YouTube CEO Neal Mohan, YouTube TV had over 8 million subscribers. In December 2024, the company raised its monthly subscription price by $10, from $72.99 to $82.99, more than double the original $35-a-month price at its launch in 2017.
According to the latest figures from audience analytics company Nielsen, streaming accounted for nearly half (47.3 percent) of all TV viewing in July.
Nielsen’s The Gage—which is a monthly snapshot of total streaming, cable, and broadcast consumption through a television screen—found that the streaming share was followed by cable (22.2 percent), broadcast (18.4 percent), and other sources (12.1 percent).
In terms of streaming, YouTube Main (excluding YouTube TV) set a platform record in July, with 13.4 percent of the viewership, followed by streaming giant Netflix at 8.8 percent.
The Gage said that YouTube viewing grew by 2 percent with 18- to 24-year-old viewers, itself the largest increase among age demographics (up 8 percent).
The streaming market share has been growing in recent years, with Nielsen reporting in June that streaming had hit a then-record 44.8 percent of total TV usage in May, more than broadcast (20.1 percent) and cable (24.1 percent) combined.
“While the milestone of streaming exceeding traditional TV viewership is almost certainly not permanent, it presumably will be in the near future,” The Gage said.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 13:40Authored by Lau Vegys via InternationalMan.com,
[ZH: This was written before Trump fired Fed Governor Cook, potentially further entrenching his appointees on the Fed Board]
Stephen Miran’s appointment to the Federal Reserve isn’t just another personnel move—it’s the placement of Trump’s Reset architect inside the very institution that will help carry out America’s most ambitious economic overhaul in generations.
If you’re still unfamiliar with what Trump’s Reset entails, I strongly recommend checking out Matt Smith’s comprehensive analysis. He’s done the heavy lifting of connecting dots that were only hinted at in Miran’s original white paper.
Without getting into the weeds, Miran, the mastermind behind what’s been dubbed the “Mar-a-Lago Accord,” outlined a comprehensive plan to flip the U.S. dollar’s reserve status from a burden into a bargaining chip. To turn America’s towering debt from an embarrassment into leverage. And to reorient the entire global economic structure in Washington’s favor.
And of course, what makes this especially relevant right now—particularly for anyone with gold exposure—is the timing.
The yellow metal has been on a relentless march higher throughout 2025, setting multiple all-time highs and blasting past $3,400 an ounce just last month. Now, with Miran’s appointment to the Fed, we’re seeing exactly why smart money has been quietly accumulating the yellow metal all year.
But anyone thinking Miran’s appointment is simply about giving Trump another dovish vote for rate cuts is missing the much bigger picture. Gold isn’t just rising because of anticipated rate cuts. It’s been rising because informed investors recognized what Trump’s Reset strategy would eventually require: the systematic weakening of dollar dominance and a potential gold revaluation.
Again, I urge you to check out Matt’s report if you’re unclear on the specifics—he’s laid out the relationships and implications more clearly than anyone I’ve seen attempt it.
The upshot is that Miran’s appointment is simply the latest confirmation that this plan is moving from theory into practice. (And once you see what that implies for both the dollar and gold, it’s easier to understand why $3,400 gold may be only the beginning.)
Miran’s Fed Position Is a Game-ChangerI don’t want to sound like a broken record, but I can’t stress this enough.
This isn’t just about securing another dovish vote for rate cuts—Trump could have picked any yes-man for that. It’s about placing the architect of America’s monetary reset directly inside the Federal Reserve.
You see, the Fed doesn’t set tariffs, negotiate trade deals, or sign defense pacts—but it does control the single most important lever in Trump’s Reset: the cost and flow of money.
From his position as Fed governor, Miran will have a permanent vote on the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), giving him direct influence over interest rates, money supply, and crucially, the Fed’s balance sheet operations. But more importantly, he’ll be positioned to coordinate monetary policy with the broader Reset strategy he designed.
Think about what this means in practical terms—and from Trump’s perspective. The Reset strategy involves coordinated dollar devaluation—but that requires the Fed to be on board. You can’t orchestrate a Plaza Accord (more on it below)-style currency adjustment if your central bank is fighting you every step of the way. With Miran inside the Fed, Trump gets someone who understands both the macroeconomic theory behind dollar devaluation and the practical mechanics of how to execute it through monetary policy.
Note: The U.S. dollar has already weakened more than 10% over the past six months. To put it in perspective, the last time the dollar fell this much early in the year was 1973—right after the U.S. finalized its break from gold and the fiat era fully took hold.
Miran’s appointment also signals something even more significant: the institutional capture of monetary policy. When Jerome Powell’s term expires in May 2026, Fed chairs are typically chosen from among existing governors. By installing Miran now, Trump is positioning his Reset architect to potentially lead the entire Federal Reserve system.
In short, it’s Trump making sure the Fed itself becomes a primary tool for carrying out his Reset. And there’s a very deliberate reason for that.
Trump’s Reset Needs the Fed on SideNow, I brought up the Plaza Accord above because it’s the closest historical precedent to what we’re calling Trump’s Monetary Reset (or the Mar-a-Lago Accord).
You’ve probably heard of it.
On September 22, 1985, finance ministers from the world’s largest economies gathered at New York’s Plaza Hotel to coordinate a devaluation of the unnaturally strong U.S. dollar.
Naturally, outside the U.S., no one wanted a weaker dollar—it would make their exports pricier for American buyers. But, just like today, Washington applied pressure with tariffs, import surcharges, quotas, and pointed accusations of “unfair trade.”
And guess what? It worked. West Germany and Japan—the economic powerhouses of the day—caved.
But here’s what made the Plaza Accord actually work: the Federal Reserve was fully on board. Fed Chairman Paul Volcker coordinated closely with Treasury Secretary James Baker to ensure monetary policy backed the dollar devaluation strategy. He cut interest rates from roughly 12% to 6% between late 1984 and late 1986, creating the conditions for the dollar to fall. Without that cooperation, the Plaza Accord probably would have been just another piece of paper.
This is exactly why Miran’s appointment is so crucial. Trump learned from Reagan’s playbook—to execute coordinated currency devaluation, you better make sure your central bank is pulling in the same direction. By installing the Reset architect inside the Fed, Trump ensures that monetary policy will align with, rather than undermine, his broader economic strategy.
And what happened to gold in the wake of the Plaza Accord?
It surged. Take a look at the chart below.
After the Plaza Accord in 1985, gold jumped from about $320 per ounce to over $370 between September 1985 and March 1986. That’s in just six months.
Adjusted for today’s prices, that would be like seeing gold leap to roughly $4,000 an ounce.
But here’s the thing… If Trump’s Reset unfolds the way Matt and I believe it will, it won’t just be a repeat of the Plaza Accord—it’ll be that on steroids.
In today’s globalized and overleveraged economy, the ripple effects could be enormous. I wouldn’t be surprised to see gold surge to $5,000–$8,000 per ounce as markets scramble to adapt.
* * *
Stephen Miran’s arrival at the Fed isn’t just a policy shift—it’s confirmation that Trump’s Reset strategy is already moving from blueprint to reality. The implications for the dollar, gold, and your personal wealth are enormous. We’ve been tracking the signs of this coming shift for months—the hidden gold run out of London, the quiet buildup of reserves, and now the placement of Trump’s Reset architect inside the Federal Reserve itself. If you’ve been wondering what all this means for your money—and how to prepare before the Reset accelerates—I strongly urge you to read our latest deep-dive: Get Ready for Trump’s Monetary Reset. Inside, you’ll see why central banks are scrambling for gold, how Trump’s team plans to “monetize America’s balance sheet,” and why we believe this could unleash the biggest wealth revaluation in half a century. Most importantly, you’ll learn the practical steps you can take right now to protect your savings—and position yourself to potentially profit. Click here to get the full story before the Reset leaves you behind.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 13:00Former national security adviser John Bolton has gone after President Trump, blasting his Ukraine strategy as "incoherent" in an opinion piece published Monday, just a few days after federal agents raided his Maryland home and D.C. office over the handling of classified documents.
"President Donald Trump’s Ukraine policy is no more coherent today than it was last Friday when his administration executed search warrants against my home and office," Bolton said in Washington Examiner.
Bolton's op-ed title went all-in: "Trump’s utterly incoherent Ukraine strategy." He wrote that "Collapsing in confusion, haste, and the absence of any discernible meeting of the minds among Ukraine, Russia, several European countries, and America, Trump’s negotiations may be in their last throes, along with his Nobel Peace Prize campaign."
AFP/Getty Images
Hoped-for momentum towards an eventual trilateral Putin-Zelensky-Trump summit has indeed been stalled, and Trump said late last week that we could make a major decision if peace isn't negotiated in two weeks - which likely means more biting sanctions on Russia and its trading partners.
Neither warring side has actually backed off from its position, and Russia has little reason to soften its demands given that it maintains the clear upper-hand on the battlefield. Still, Bolton - as one of the neocon madmen behind the push to invade and overthrow Iraq (and other countries) - is not one to talk about coherent foreign policy.
"The administration has tried to camouflage its disarray behind social media posts, such as Trump comparing his finger-pointing at Russian President Vladimir Putin to then-Vice President Richard Nixon during the famous kitchen debate with Nikita Khrushchev," Bolton said further in his piece. "Why Trump wants to be compared to the only president who resigned in disgrace is unclear."
So clearly, Bolton is not backing down or being quiet despite the FBI raid on his home last Friday, which was described as a "court-authorized law enforcement activity."
The 'war' in the op-ed pages has been unleashed, as on Tuesday White House trade adviser Peter Navarro took to The Hill and charged Bolton with "profiteering off of America’s secrets" in relation to his 2020 book, "The Room Where It Happened."
Navarro's op-ed said "He was trafficking in Oval Office conversations and national security intelligence that should have stayed secret - either by law or under executive privilege."
"That isn’t service. That isn’t patriotism. That’s profiteering off of America’s secrets," Navarro wrote, citing a federal judge who at the time said "seems to be out of the barn" - when Trump officials had tried to stop its publication. Back in 2020, Navarro had slammed the memoir as like "revenge porn".
Bolton has only issued rare praise of Trump when he bombs another country (as he did Iran this summer)...
John Bolton, who Trump denounced in his first term as a “warmonger” when he fired him, heaps praise on Trump for… being a warmonger. pic.twitter.com/HHdiKgUDam
— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) June 22, 2025
As for the raid on Bolton's house, Trump has said that he didn't personally order it or know about it before-hand, amid accusations that it is politically motivated retribution. The president has, however, said that Bolton "could be a very unpatriotic guy. We're going to find out."
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 12:40Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently submitted a federal court brief challenging New York‘s request to restore Trump Administration funding, which was suspended after the state refused to say whether it was still providing public benefits to illegal aliens.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) restricts public benefits to “qualified aliens” exclusively—a category that excludes illegal aliens. PRWORA additionally mandates that states verify they aren’t distributing public benefits to unqualified non-citizens.
Following PRWORA’s passage, then-Attorney General Janet Reno under the Clinton administration issued state waivers exempting them from this verification mandate.
The Trump administration revoked these waivers and currently withholds federal funds from states like New York that decline to verify they aren’t providing public benefits to undocumented immigrants.
FAIR’s legal filing argues the state’s injunction request must be rejected because the federal court lacks jurisdiction to grant such relief.
According to statute, Congress has removed federal court authority to review executive actions where Congress hasn’t established review standards, instead leaving such decisions to executive discretion.
PRWORA grants the Attorney General unreviewable authority to approve or revoke verification requirement waivers.
“For our immigration laws to be enforced effectively, it is essential that the magnet of public benefits be turned off,” declared Dale L. Wilcox, FAIR’s executive director and general counsel.
“Illegal aliens should not receive a pay-off for breaking our laws. Congress understood that very well when it passed PRWORA, and New York’s plea that it be allowed to go on flouting the law is without any legal basis. We hope the court sees that it doesn’t even have jurisdiction to enter an injunction, and denies relief.”
According to Pew Research, there are 825,000 illegal aliens residing in New York.
The litigation is identified as State of New York v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00345 (D.R.I.).
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 12:20By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank
The Powell-induced equity rally took a breather yesterday as the S&P500 closed 0.43% lower, the NASDAQ 0.22% lower and the EuroStoxx 50 0.81% lower. Asian equities – perhaps still playing catchup from Powell’s Jackson Hole speech – had traded higher earlier in the day. China’s CSI300 closed up more than 2% and the Hang Seng gained 1.94% with notable lifts in rare-earth stocks after Beijing published new rules to tighten oversight of production and trading of the geopolitically-sensitive minerals. South Korea’s KOSPI gained 1.3% ahead of a Monday (US time) meeting between South Korean President Lee Jae-myung and US President Trump (more on that below).
There are consequential headlines everywhere this morning, but perhaps the most consequential for markets (in the very short term, at least) is Donald Trump’s announcement that he has fired Fed Governor Lisa Cook, effective immediately. Cook was a Biden appointee who had recently come under pressure after being accused of mortgage fraud by FHFA Director Bill Pulte. Trump said in a letter to Cook that there was sufficient reason to believe that she had made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. He also said that in light of Cook’s “deceitful and potentially criminal conduct” he did not have confidence in her integrity and her actions called into question her “competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator”, presenting cause for her firing.
As noted in this Daily yesterday, Trump has been busily working over the Fed to bend it to the MAGA program. That program is winning the competition with China by reshoring production, controlling critical supply chains and scoring strategic wins by pulling allies tighter into the US orbit and forcing them to help isolate challengers to US supremacy. China has been playing much the same game for decades now and continues to do so, as illustrated by the recent tightening on controls of rare earth exports, which the United States can’t supply itself with and needs for defence and technology applications.
The MAGA strategy encapsulates a series of carrots and sticks to coax production back inside US borders. Tariff protection to penalise offshore competition and provide an implicit subsidy to local producers was step one, lower taxes and lower regulation through the One Big Beautiful Bill and DOGE is step two, cheap energy through friendly relations with Saudi Arabia and ‘Drill, Baby, Drill!’ is step three, and cheap capital by getting the Fed into a headlock and forcing it to follow the wishes of the executive is step four. Executing a ‘reverse Nixon’ by improving relations with Russia to split them off from their “no limits” partnership with China would have been a nice to have from the perspective of the administration, but looks increasingly unlikely.
Given that Trump is only six months into his second term and has already executed on most of the major planks of the MAGA economic program, it is clear that the economy is being re-made at an astonishing rate, and the commentariat is clearly struggling to keep up. Long term free market evangelists over at the Financial Times are now describing Trump as the ‘Dirigiste-in chief’, which of course he is. The Republican Party of Ronald Reagan is not the Republican Party of Donald Trump. Friedmanite ideas of free markets and low touch government are out and a strong executive hand on the economic tiller is now very much in.
As the FT notes, the examples of this are manifold: the US government’s ‘golden share’ that Trump extracted from Nippon Steel in exchange for approving its purchase of US Steel (Trump has previously said “if you don’t have steel [production], you don’t have a country”), deals to allow Nvidia and AMD to sell chips in China in exchange for the US government receiving 15% of the revenue, the Pentagon becoming the largest shareholder in rare earths producer MP Materials (in an effort to counteract the Chinese export controls noted above) and the US’s 10% stake in chipmaker Intel that was confirmed over the weekend.
The FT quotes the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome comparing these “pretty darn bonkers” deals to Barack Obama’s effective nationalization of US automakers during the Great Recession of 2007-8. The comparison is fitting, but its perhaps worth noting that the Obama strategy managed to save those automakers while also allowing the US government to recover some of the cost by selling its stake in later years. A handy counterfactual might be Australia’s government bailout of Qantas during the Covid pandemic, when $2.7bn of taxpayer money was handed over, gratis, and none of it recovered once the company was back on its feet (because state ownership would have been ideologically intolerable). Which was the better deal for main street?
In many respects, the United States as the world’s pre-eminent Western, liberal democracy is responding to competition from China (not Western, not liberal and not a democracy) by mirroring Chinese economic practises back to China and much of the rest of the world. For the first time in a long time the United States is back in the game of economic planning with a coherent (albeit risky) economic, industrial, financial (for more on that, see RaboResearch’s recent piece on the emerging role of stablecoins here) and military strategy now adopted to achieve foreign policy objectives. Gone are the days of assuming that the market knows best in all applications and will deliver wealth and power if simply left alone to do its work.
These are all trends that have been flagged extensively in this Daily and in the work of RaboResearch’s Global Strategist Michael Every for many years now. None of this is should come as a surprise for the intellectually curious who cared to look, but markets still retain the capacity to be surprised by these sorts of statecraft moves. Many markets currently pricing for perfection –or for the assumed continuation of a single globalized system of prices – in the most imperfect of market conditions run the risk of being mugged sooner or later.
Turning back to President Lee’s visit to the White House, these trends are again evident. Trump continues to engage in a kind of aeroplane diplomacy employed in previous trade agreements by securing commitments from Korean Air to purchase 100 (made in the USA) Boeing jets, while also securing commitments from Hanwha to assist with increasing shipbuilding capacity at its facilities in the US by 8-10x and seeking to take “ownership” of land leased from South Korea to host US military bases.
Notably, within the last 24 hours Trump has similarly applied aeroplane diplomacy to China by saying that China was “intelligently” withholding rare earths from the US, but that the US would retaliate by withholding critical aircraft parts. Trump said that “we have tremendous power over them, and they have some power over us”. “We have much bigger and better cards than they do... If I played those cards, that would destroy China. I’m not going to play those cards.” While relations appear relatively cordial at the moment, the potential for bifurcation clearly remains. “If we want to put 100%, 200% tariffs on, we wouldn’t do any business with China. And you know, it would be OK too, if we had to.”
Following his meeting with Trump, President Lee also said that South Korea would “take on a more leading role in maintaining security on the Korean Peninsula”, beginning by increasing defence spending in much the same fashion that European NATO members were recently forced to do by the United States. Tellingly, when asked whether South Korea could continue to rely on the United States for its security while reaping economic benefits from trade with China (South Korea’s largest trading partner) Lee said “[Korea] can no longer maintain the same approach as in the past... It is no longer possible for Korea to act or make judgements in ways that run counter to the U.S. basic policy direction.”
Australia and New Zealand (and Japan?), who plan to spend less on defence that Korea does now and who also have their security underwritten by the United States while profiting from China as their largest trading partner are now very much on notice
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 11:40Polymarket, the world’s largest prediction platform, has secured a double-digit million-dollar investment from Donald Trump Jr.’s venture capital fund 1789 Capital, Axios reported Tuesday.
As part of the deal, Trump Jr. will also join Polymarket’s advisory board.
"Polymarket is the largest prediction market in the world, and the U.S. needs access to this important platform," said Donald Trump Jr.
"Polymarket cuts through media spin and so-called 'expert' opinion by letting people bet on what they actually believe will happen in the world. I am pleased that 1789 Capital is investing in Polymarket and am honored to join the company's advisory board. I look forward to working with the team to advance its mission of bringing truth and transparency to everyone – including the U.S."
The investment comes just months after Polymarket was valued at more than $1 billion by Founders Fund and follows the company’s $112 million acquisition of derivatives exchange QCEX, which gave it a CFTC license to operate in the US.
"1789 Capital looks to invest in companies that are entrepreneurial, innovative, and demonstrate great potential for growth. Polymarket meets each of these criteria," said Omeed Malik, Founder of 1789 Capital.
"Polymarket stands at the intersection of free expression and financial innovation by empowering individuals with real-time truth in a world clouded by noise, and we are proud to support its vision."
Trump Jr. now stands on both sides of the sector, also serving as a paid strategic advisor to Kalshi, Polymarket’s main rival and a fully regulated US prediction market.
1789, whose portfolio also includes Anduril and SpaceX, views Polymarket as an eventual IPO candidate.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 11:18And just like that, Europe is gripped by another political crisis (but... but... the euro is soaring) after French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou called a confidence vote that may topple France’s government as soon as September 8, prompting a selloff in French assets as investors hedged for more political uncertainty.
The conservative National Rally party, the leftist France Unbowed and the Greens all said they would vote against the Sept. 8 motion while even the Socialists - so pretty much the entire political spectrum in France - said they wouldn’t back the government. If a majority of lawmakers vote against Bayrou, which now appears to be the case, he’ll be forced to submit his government’s resignation. This would be overdue for a government which should have been bounced long ago.
The failure of another French government — the previous prime minister, Michel Barnier, lasted only 90 days — would underscore the tenuous position of President Emmanuel Macron, whose party and its allies lost any semblance of a parliamentary majority in 2024. Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, which became the largest party in the lower house in that vote, is calling for a new election
Here is a recap of all the latest developments:
This has put French risk back into the spotlight and we are now likely to see continued headlines and volatility in the region over the coming months. Indeed, for the second day in a row, France's CAC 40 has tumbled more than 1%, Europe's worst performing index, and the 2nd biggest two day drop for the CAC since the Liberation Day plunge.
It's not just stocks: French bonds are also getting hammered with 10Y OAT yields spiking since the announcement...
... which is to be expected: as these Goldman charts show, French domestic stocks have performed well in recent months despite a widening in sovereign spreads which may well have sensed that this showdown is coming.
While Goldman naturally sees French domestic stocks as the most sensitive slice of the market to French political risks, the bank shows in the chart below other European indices and their long-term correlation with sovereign spreads (French and Peripheral spreads). Southern European indices, Banks, CAC 40, Cyclicals and the EUR tend to be most sensitive, while Consumer Staples, Healthcare, Low vol stocks and FTSE 100 are most positive positively correlated (in terms of relative performance) when sovereign spreads widen.
So how to hedge a worst case outcome? Below we lay out some ideas from Goldman's Thilo Deller, writes that implied vols have moved higher in the front-of the curve, albeit from low levels. With the CAC vol term structure now slightly inverted here...
... Goldman prefers owning vol in Dec, where the likelihood of capturing a potential election is higher. While the implied move for the 8th of September has moved higher (~1.1% in SX5E), the options market has started to price increased volatility in the months following the vote on the back of potential elections and budget uncertainties.
Separately, for traders seeking broad French equity protection, these are the trades:
CAC Dec25 95%/85% Put Spread costs 1.35% [20-delta | 7.4x pay-out]
For more targeted French exposure Deller likes the bank's French domestic basket. This has >50% domestic exposure vs ~15% for CAC. We can see that historically and on a day like today, it exhibits a high beta to French risk (today CAC -1.8% vs basket -3.8%).
As a hedge ::
For reversion ::
Finally, here is an excerpt from a Goldman Q&A on the French Confidence Vote (full note available to pro subs)
Q1. What happened?
French Prime Minister Bayrou held a press conference yesterday (August 25) in which he announced that he would call a confidence vote on September 8.
The announcement was unexpected, as there had been no leaks or hints ahead of the press conference. The decision to call for a confidence vote is all the more surprising because the government does not have a majority in parliament, and because the upcoming budget vote was in any case likely to lead to several no-confidence votes.
Q2. How likely is the government to collapse?
The confidence vote will follow Art 49.1 of the Constitution, which requires a simple majority of votes cast (for or against, but excluding abstentions) against the government for it to collapse. This makes for a lower bar than a no-confidence vote under Art 49.3 of the Constitution, which requires an absolute majority of all votes (including abstentions) against the government.
At the time of writing, a majority of opposition parties in Parliament have announced they would vote against the government. These include RN (far-right), LFI (far-left), as well as the socialist, green, and communist parties (left), totalling close to 330 seats in Parliament. In comparison, the government is supported by the parties allied to President Macron and LR (centre-right), amounting to around 210 seats.
The government could survive the confidence vote if some of the opposition parties flip their vote in support or end up abstaining in large enough numbers. It could also be that turnout on the day of the vote is surprisingly favourable to the government, as only the votes cast for or against the government will count towards the tally.
But the most likely outcome at this point is that the government loses the confidence vote and is forced to resign. Prediction markets accordingly assign more than an 80% chance of PM Bayrou leaving office by September 30.
Q3. What would be the next steps?
If the government were to collapse, President Macron would have the choice between appointing a new government under the current Parliament or calling for new parliamentary elections.
The current Parliament makes for limited government options, because coalitions that include LFI (far-left) and RN (far-right) are unlikely to reach a majority. We think the most viable option remains the broad centrist majority spanning President Macron’s allies (centre), LR (centre-right), and the socialists (centre-left). President Macron could therefore re-appoint a centrist or centre-right PM (similar to current PM Bayrou or former PM Barnier), appoint a centre-left PM, or appoint a more technocratic PM. In that case, the change in government could be relatively swift, such as when Bayrou took office 9 days after Barnier was forced to resign.
The key difference to when the government collapsed last December is that early parliamentary elections are now possible again. President Macron has until now expressed a preference not to call early elections. But he might have to if a majority of parties in Parliament call on him to do so (in practice, by pledging to veto any government until elections take place).
Opinion polls have not changed significantly since last year and continue to show voters split roughly three ways between the far- and centre-left, President Macron’s allies and the centre-right, and the far-right. But three important differences are that the alliance between the far- and centre-left has collapsed again, that far-right leader Marine Le Pen is now banned from running for office, and that local elections are scheduled for March 2026.
Q4. What would be the implications for the budget?
The potential collapse of the government underscores that the targeted deficit reduction (from 5.4% of GDP this year to 4.6% next year) looks too ambitious. We had already assumed that the government would make concessions to opposition parties and eventually raise the deficit target for next year to 5%.
If President Macron were to appoint a new government under the current Parliament, political parties could still have time to find a compromise and pass a budget before year-end. But the initial budget proposal would probably be less ambitious and still require concessions during parliamentary debates. In that case, we would look for a deficit of 5.2% of GDP next year and we are raising our baseline forecast accordingly. We expect the government debt-to-GDP ratio to increase from 116% this year to 122% by 2030.
If President Macron were to call for new parliamentary elections, the content of the budget would depend on the composition of the new Parliament. Given that current polls still point to a political deadlock, the most likely budgetary outcome might not look very different from that under the current Parliament. But there would be two important differences. First, the range of possible budgetary outcomes would become wider, because one of the three main political groups might secure a majority. Second, the change in government would likely take longer, and might lead to renewed concerns regarding slippage on this year’s budget. In that case, we would look for a slightly larger deficit this year and next, compared with our new baseline forecast of 5.4% in 2025 and 5.2% in 2026. As a result, the government debt would increase further than in our baseline forecast.
A collapse of government and corresponding increase in deficit expectations would also make further rating downgrades more likely. Fitch (AA-, negative outlook) will report on September 12, Moody’s (Aa3, stable outlook) on October 24, and S&P (AA-, negative outlook) on November 28.
Q5. What would be the implications for growth?
The implications for growth would be ambiguous. On the one hand, a smaller deficit reduction into next year would imply a smaller fiscal drag and be positive for growth, all else equal. On the other hand, the tightening in financial conditions and increase in policy uncertainty would likely be negative for growth. Taken together, growth would likely continue to run below trend (which we estimate at 1% in France). We are therefore leaving our growth forecast at 0.6% in 2025 and 0.9% in 2026.
More in the full notes from Goldman research (here and here) and trading (here) both available to pro subs.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 10:41The post Trump Proposes 200 Percent Tariff on Imports from China, Xi Pushes for 300 Percent appeared first on CEPR.
Axios has a story out this week that disclosed that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) continued to pay off the debts from former Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign. Over $15 million has already been paid out by the DNC, which is reportedly struggling to raise money in the aftermath of a failed campaign.
Axios described it as a “private agreement” that was not disclosed to donors, who unknowingly contributed to the Harris campaign rather than the campaigns to retake the House and Senate.
The question is whether such private agreements are lawful if not disclosed to donors.
Harris shocked many in burning through over $1.5 billion in her brief 15-week campaign. Donors were irate over wasteful and excessive spending by Harris and her campaign. That has contributed to the poor fundraising figures reported from the DNC.
The article is likely to increase the anger of donors who have been reluctant to contribute after the wild spending of the Harris campaign. The notion of a bait-and-switch is even greater after the Harris campaign denied it had lingering debts that would have to be paid off by the DNC.
What is particularly shocking is that the Axios report said that in the “first six months of 2025,” the DNC has spent over $15 million on Harris’s debts.
Politico is reporting that the DNC only raised $15 million as of the end of June in comparison to the Republican National Committee (RNC) having $80 million “on hand.”
The amount reported by Axios may be slow.
The New York Times reported that the DNC “covered” roughly $20.5 million in “post-election bills” for Harris’s campaign.
My assumption is that, absent a pledge to spend on future campaigns, the use of donations for debts (even of past candidates) is lawful. It is not without legitimate questions when the DNC is raising money on the pledge to retake Congress in 2026. The DNC can argue that money is fungible and paying off debts is part of its operating budget. However, at a minimum, there is a concerning lack of transparency and disclosure in the “private agreement” with Harris.
In the meantime, Harris is starting a book tour for her book “107 Days,” which promises that Harris will “tell the story of one of the wildest and most consequential presidential campaigns in American history.”
It likely does not include a chapter on burning through a record $1.5 billion, which was insufficient even with supportive media, to secure the White House.
Tyler Durden Tue, 08/26/2025 - 10:20
Recent comments