My back-to-work morning reads:

• What Years of Inflation Have Done to American Prices: Life has gotten a lot more expensive over the past few years. Across the economy, the cost of goods and services has soared. Consumer prices overall have risen more than 30 percent since the beginning of 2019. That’s two and a half times as much as they went up from 2012 to 2019.​ Edison Wu charts the damage — raw steak averaged about $6 a pound in 2012 and roughly $13 today. (New York Times)

• The Unrelenting Bond Selloff Puts the 10-Year Yield on the Cusp of 5%: Rising borrowing costs threaten to disrupt the stock market and slow the economy. The 10-year Treasury hits 4.943% — with rising borrowing costs threatening the stock market and the economy alike. (Wall Street Journal) see also How to Protect Your Nest Egg When Inflation Is Ballooning: Oil near $100, inflation above target for five-plus years, and the case for TIPS. When Inflation is a threat. TIPs can help get it under control. (Wall Street Journal)

• How much money is enough? A practical guide to deciding what your money is for, and when you’re allowed to stop moving the goalposts. Hanna Horvath follows up her financial-nihilism essay with its hardest reader question — okay, but what am I actually working toward? (Hanna Horvath)

• The SaaSpocalypse was more like a RenaiSaaS: Overall SaaS revenue growth actually accelerated through the SaaSpocalypse. Ernie Tedeschi on the early-2026 repricing that wiped out perhaps $2 trillion in enterprise software value — and why the episode looks less like an apocalypse in hindsight. (Stripe Economics)

​• Moonshot Capitalism: AI Rewrites the Venture Capital Playbook: Tim Bradshaw on the resurgence of outlandish bets — nuclear fusion, melding humans with machines — as SpaceX-sized returns and falling software valuations push VCs toward capital-intensive dealmaking. (Financial Times)

• We Are Living in the Fantasy World of 13-Year-Old Boys: Many of the tech billionaires who built our world have taken the wrong lessons from their favorite science fiction. Gal Beckerman on the tech billionaires who took the wrong lessons from their favorite science fiction. (The Atlantic) ​

• New York changed in dramatic and surprising ways in the 25 years since 9/11: Some of the most positive changes have come with downsides that are straining the city. Hannah Natanson on the panicked predictions historians made in September 2001 — and how few of them came true. (Washington Post) see also The architect of 9/11 built the world we inhabit today: The changes to our urban design, architecture and everyday life are so profound we can hardly see them. ​Philip Kennicott starts with Emerson’s 1840s prediction about the view from the Capitol’s west terrace — and traces what the attacks did to the American landscape. (Washington Post)

• I interviewed Apple CEO John Ternus on the making of the iPhone Duo — here’s what made him say ‘yes, that’s it’ This is the story behind Apple’s first foldable phone. Mark Spoonauer gets the story of Apple’s first foldable — famously late to the category, as usual.  (Tom’s Guide)

​• Contractor Blames Its Own Repairs, Not Vandals, for Reflecting Pool Failure: Maxine Joselow on the documents showing the Lincoln Memorial pool’s new blue liner peeled because of “human oversight” and two incompatible chemicals — not sabotage. (New York Times)

​• The Fantasy of ‘The Office,’ the Reality of ‘The Paper’: Monica Hesse on the viewers whose answer to “when did you finish watching The Office?” is never — and also all the time. The bingeable workplace comedy was about the glory of the mundane. Its successor is about finding serenity in chaos. (Washington Post)

Video of the day: How Larry Ellison Built His Empire

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Seth Bernstein, CEO of AllianceBernstein and Head of Asset Management of Equitable Holdings, the 69% owner AB. The firm manages $905.5B. Previously, he spent 32 years at JPMorgan Chase, where he eventually became the Global Head of Managed Solutions & Strategy at JPAM, responsible for all discretionary assets for Private Banking clients, and Global Head of Fixed Income & Currency. He eventually became CFO of JPM’s Investment Management & Private Banking division.

 

From 1984 to 2024, the Fed adjusted rates (up or down) within 60 days of an election (43%) as often as in any other 60-day period (45%).

Source: Claudia Sham

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Truckers Hauled Hundreds Of Kilos Of Cartel Cocaine On US-Canada Freight Lanes

By Phil Brink of FreightWaves.com,

Federal prosecutors charged a California restaurant operator after agents seized more than 40 pounds of methamphetamine. Investigators found the drugs inside his residence and Hyundai Sonata, according to a federal affidavit. Searches also uncovered three firearms, a digital scale and $11,800 in cash. The operation grew from a wider organized crime investigation involving long-haul truck drivers.

A federal grand jury indicted Kawal Preet Singh, 50, on Sept. 3. The indictment contains five counts, including two methamphetamine distribution charges from May 12 and July 13. Two additional counts accuse Singh of possession with intent to distribute on Aug. 18. Each drug count involves at least 500 grams of methamphetamine. A fifth count alleges he possessed an Accu-Tek handgun to further a trafficking offense. Singh operated a Round Table Pizza restaurant in Dinuba, California. Authorities claim he distributed wholesale quantities from that business while armed with illegal firearms.

Trucking network moved cocaine across borders

The FBI’s Fresno Resident Agency opened its organized crime investigation during February 2025. Intelligence connected suspected participants with drug trafficking, extortion, human trafficking and cargo theft. Agents received information about a Fresno-area narcotics trafficker called “Camy” during May 2026. An informant described Camy as a Sikh Indian man involved in long-haul trucking.

The source claimed Camy worked with other Sikh Indian drivers who transported narcotics. Investigators later developed evidence concerning hundreds of kilograms of cocaine entering from Mexico. The affidavit attributes those shipments to an unspecified Mexican cartel. Some loads reportedly continued through the United States before reaching Canada.

Court records identify Singh as a subject within that broader inquiry. However, the affidavit never explicitly identifies Singh as Camy. It also does not accuse him of personally hauling cocaine aboard commercial vehicles. Authorities disclosed no carriers, drivers, USDOT numbers, routes or border crossings.

Searches uncover methamphetamine and firearms

A federal magistrate authorized searches involving Singh, his home and restaurant on Aug. 13. Agents watched him drive from his residence to the Dinuba business five days later. They approached after he unlocked the entrance and entered alone. Investigators then executed warrants at both locations around 11 a.m.

Agents seized Singh’s iPhone before interviewing him inside the restaurant. The affidavit states he acknowledged storing methamphetamine for a friend “because of friendship.” He also claimed he had not sold that drug for approximately two months. Investigators later found a photograph showing a white crystalline substance on his device.

The residence contained approximately 13.8 kilograms of suspected methamphetamine, court records show. His Hyundai held another 4.9 kilograms that produced a positive presumptive result. Combined weight reached approximately 18.7 kilograms, or more than 41 pounds. Agents found similarly packaged substances across the searched locations.

Investigators recovered two concealed handguns from the restaurant, including one unserialized weapon. The residence contained an Accu-Tek semiautomatic pistol, digital scale and $11,800 in assorted denominations. Authorities found cash plus that firearm hidden inside clothing within a closet near three methamphetamine bags. An HSI agent called those circumstances consistent with bulk narcotics distribution. Prosecutors also seek forfeiture of proceeds, facilitating property, firearms and ammunition following any conviction.

Major questions remain unanswered

The government has not identified Camy or explained Singh’s possible connection with that person. Officials also withheld the suspected cartel’s name, participating carrier details and shipment routes. Court filings do not disclose whether agents searched or seized any commercial trucks. Records provide no identified cargo theft victims, trafficking survivors or related charges.

Singh faces at least 10 years and potentially life imprisonment following any drug conviction. The firearm count carries another consecutive term between five years and life. A judge released him under home detention, location monitoring and other conditions on Aug. 24. Federal law presumes Singh innocent unless prosecutors prove every charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Following a FreightWaves inquiry, the U.S. Attorney’s Office provided the complaint and indictment. Those records did not answer questions about Camy, participating carriers or Singh’s connection to the trucking network. Singh’s attorney had not responded before publication. This story will be updated if additional responses arrive.

Why it matters

Criminal organizations can exploit legitimate trucking activity to move drugs, stolen cargo and trafficking victims across borders. Freight professionals need accurate information about how authorities identify networks operating within commercial transportation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 19:30

Shareholder Ownership Gives Way To Corporate Control

Authored by Iain O'Brien via RealClearMarkets,

Today's business ownership landscape is increasingly complicated by financial, voting, contractual and capital arrangements. A direct relationship between ownership and control can no longer be assumed, particularly for strategically important companies.

Sika, a Swiss chemicals company, entered a four-year corporate battle in 2014, when building-material firm Saint-Gobain announced it would buy a controlling majority. Although the Burkard family owned 16% of shares, a dual-class structure granted them over 52% of voting rights. Sika showed why economic ownership does not necessarily equal voting power.

A relevant example took place between American firms Endeavor Group Holdings, now WME Group, and Silver Lake, in 2024. Endeavor agreed to be taken private by Silver Lake, which already controlled over 70% of Endeavor's voting rights. Silver Lake could therefore approve the merger, effectively controlling the company's future before owning it. Mubadala, Goldman Sachs and other investors also took part, making a true "owner" difficult to define.

The stakes change when a company is deeply involved in a country's industrial capacity. Energy infrastructure, semiconductors, and critical-mineral producers introduce geopolitical considerations.

Korea Zinc, among the world's most prominent refined zinc producers, has seen a dispute with Young Poong putting the history of the two firms and their controlling families in the spotlight. Korea Zinc emerged from a partnership between the Choi and Jang families, who control Korea Zinc and Young Poong respectively. The Choi family has maintained management control despite Young Poong being the largest shareholder, with a stake of 33-37%. In 2024, Young Poong partnered with South Korean MBK Partners, launching a tender offer resulting in joint ownership of over 46% of voting shares.

The transaction created several layers of control. Young Poong agreed to a cooperation agreement to jointly exercise voting rights with MBK Partners. While Young Poong continued to hold shares, MBK acquired a stronger role in deciding how they would be used. On a newly formed board at Korea Zinc, directors nominated by MBK would later outnumber those selected by Young Poong, essentially determining the board's composition. A call option on Young Poong's Korea Zinc shares was also granted to MBK Partners. The option has drawn controversy because Young Poong is alleged to have granted MBK highly favorable terms at below market costs, exposing it to significant financial losses.

MBK's business ties highlight how assigning a single national identity to a modern company may prove difficult. China's sovereign wealth fund represents roughly 5% of one of MBK Partners' investment funds. Such ties raised concerns among Korea Zinc management that their firm would eventually come under Chinese control. Concerns about Chinese influence have also been highlighted in relation to Project Crucible, a joint Korea Zinc led venture, which Young Poong and MBK Partners initially opposed because it placed too much control in the hands of the US government, posing a national security risk to Korea. More recently, however, Young Poong and MBK Partners have changed their approach, taking a more supportive public position towards the project. This included hosting a promotional reception in Tennessee during which they sought to give the impression of ownership over the project.

Separate questions have also been raised about Young Poong's environmental, financial and managerial issues related to a smelting plant project. These concerns gained renewed attention following Korean police's decision to reopen an investigation into alleged environmental law violations by Young Poong Counsel Hyung-jin Jang.

The cases above illustrate why regulators and investors need to look beyond the registry of shareholders. In Sika's case, a minority stake could carry majority voting power, while Endeavor controlled votes before owning a majority of economic interests. In Korea Zinc's case, the battle involves shareholder alliances, control rights and internationally sourced capital with vast potential geopolitical implications.

Traditional concepts of ownership no longer capture where control in companies resides. This matters for governments screening transactions with economic sovereignty, national security and competitiveness in mind. The era of the shareholder may be giving way to an era where control matters more than ownership.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 18:30

Johnson Says $5,000 Trump Payments Require Congress To Act

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said on Sunday that President Trump's plan to send $5,000 dividend checks to American adults if Republicans keep both the House and Senate would require an act of Congress. 

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) speaks during the second day of the 2026 Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas on Sept. 10, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

"I would assume, yes, he'd need Congress to act, and that’s a creative idea," Johnson told CNN in a "State of the Union" interview.

Tapper: Where would the money come from for Trump's $5,000 checks?

Speaker Johnson: "It's a new, creative idea…We applaud the president for thinking outside the box." pic.twitter.com/bCXZ3w8izp

— Bulwark Clips (@BulwarkClips) September 13, 2026

"We have to figure all that out. But I think what he was articulating … is that he’s saying that, if you want more money in your pocket, you have to keep Republicans in charge," Johnson continued. 

Then in a separate interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," Johnson said when asked whether payments would be sent, that he would "commit that Congress will work through it and find consensus on that, like they have to do everything else," adding that "it takes some time." 

"I never go out and give big commitments on the front end because I’ve got to work through it, and that’s what we do every single day," he added. 

Johnson also told CNN that “pro-growth policies” backed by the Trump administration have led to tax cuts.

“They also have in additional take-home pay an average of $8,000 per filer. By the way, 97 percent of tax filers got a tax cut this year. We cut taxes on tips and overtime, Social Security, all those things,” he said.

Several Republicans publicly embraced the idea of sending the checks, including Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), who wrote on X last week that he would prepare legislation for the payments. Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) also said that “it was the first I heard of it last night” but called it good economic policy, according to the Epoch Times. 

During a speech Wednesday night at the GOP's midterm convention in Dallas, Texas, Trump proposed sending every adult American citizen a $5,000 "Trump dividend" if Republicans retain control of both chambers of Congress in November.

"If the Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate, both of them," Trump said, "I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for $5,000."

NEW: President Trump makes a major promise at the Republican midterm convention in Dallas: $5,000 for every adult U.S. citizen if Republicans win both the House and Senate in the midterms.

“I will issue a dividend to every adult citizen in the United States of America for… pic.twitter.com/XqiphY7y8a

— Fox News (@FoxNews) September 10, 2026

Trump told the audience at the American Airlines Center: "Your vote will decide whether our country stumbles at the starting gate of our next 250 years or surges forward and never looks back."

A $5,000 payout to 270 million adults would cost the US government approximately $1.35 trillion. The proposal comes as US public debt surpassed $40 trillion for the first time in recent weeks.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 18:00

The Fauci Diary Entry That Explains Why MAHA Must Exist

Authored by Peter Navarro via The Epoch Times,

I fought Anthony Fauci across a White House table over the China travel ban, lockdowns, masks, hydroxychloroquine, vaccines, and boosters.

Yet one of the most damning pieces of evidence I have ever seen against the man did not surface until six years later, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) released Fauci's private pandemic diary.

It is an entry dated Aug. 15, 2021. The Biden White House was preparing to roll out a broad COVID booster campaign. Behind closed doors, Fauci knew there was a problem.

The evidence was thin.

The case for boosting everybody was weak.

And the administration needed a message.

Here is what Fauci wrote:

"If we are too precise we will be called out because we cannot back it with data."

Read that again.

This was not Anthony Fauci struggling heroically with scientific uncertainty. This was the president's chief medical adviser admitting, in private, that the government could not support its public booster message with the data.

Worse, the decision was already moving ahead.

Fauci described himself and the White House medical team as trying to "fashion [a] coherent message to justify the announcement" that boosters would be offered broadly.

The policy came first. The justification came afterward.

And Fauci knew exactly where the scientific weakness lay.

In the same diary entry, he identified the real question: Did everybody need another shot, or only the elderly and those with underlying conditions?

That was not some question raised later by "anti-vaxxers." Fauci himself was asking it privately before the universal campaign rolled forward.

Yet instead of insisting that the government stop, gather the evidence, and tell Americans precisely what was known and unknown, Fauci helped fashion the message.

His own words are devastating: precision was dangerous because precision could expose that the government "cannot back it with data."

Five weeks later, the government's own scientific advisers effectively vindicated the concern Fauci had privately recorded - but publicly ignored.

On Sept. 17, 2021, the FDA's outside advisory committee voted 16-2 against Pfizer's request to give a booster to everyone 16 and older.

Then, when the proposal was narrowed to older and high-risk Americans, the same committee overwhelmingly supported it.

Same experts. Same meeting. Same evidence.

No to everybody.

Yes to those most at risk.

That was precisely the distinction Fauci had privately identified.

So what did Fauci do when independent experts arrived publicly at essentially the same conclusion he had privately entertained?

He did not celebrate science working as intended.

His diary records that he was "disappointed."

When FDA officials moved toward the narrower authorization, Fauci called it "a major mistake."

That tells you what this story is really about.

It is not simply that Anthony Fauci got a medical question wrong. Scientists get things wrong.

It is that the answer Fauci's Medical Industrial Complex wanted had begun to outrank the evidence.

A recommendation says: Here is what we know. Here is what we do not know. Here are the risks and benefits. You and your physician decide.

A mandate says: Take the product or pay a price - perhaps your job, your military career, your education, or your ability to participate in ordinary life.

The second requires stronger evidence than the first.

During COVID, Washington repeatedly moved in the opposite - and authoritarian - direction.

The more coercive the policy became, the simpler the message became.

Age disappeared.

Comorbidities disappeared.

Natural immunity was pushed aside.

Known concerns such as myocarditis in younger men became inconvenient complications to a universal slogan. Miscarriage risk in the first trimester - mum, not Mom, was the word.

Everybody vaccinate.

Everybody boost.

That is not informed consent.

That is compliance.

My forthcoming book, "Why Fauci MUST Rot in Prison: His Diary. My Diary. Your Verdict," puts Fauci's private diary beside the public record and beside my own contemporaneous record from inside the first Trump White House.

Again and again, Private Tony knew things Public Tony did not tell you.

Private Tony had doubts.

Public Tony had certainty.

Private Tony saw complications.

Public Tony sold slogans.

And when the evidence threatened the slogan, the problem became how to "fashion" the message.

That is why this story matters to the MAHA movement far beyond Anthony Fauci.

MAHA must break the machinery that allowed one government official, surrounded by an obedient medical establishment, Big Pharma, compliant media, and censorious technology companies, to convert unsettled science into government dogma.

Science requires dissent.

Medicine requires individual judgment.

Informed consent requires the whole truth.

And no government official should ever again be permitted to hide uncertainty from the people while privately worrying that telling them the precise truth would expose that he could not "back it with data."

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 15:00

Trump Rejects AI "Pause" As Obama Urges Democrats To Regulate It

Update (1455ET): President Trump and former President Obama have now weighed in on the 'pause' - with Trump calling for full steam ahead, and Obama endorsing the pause so the government can regulate AI (good luck with that).

From the Irish Open in Doonbeg on Sunday, Trump dismissed Saturday's "pace the frontier" pile-on from Dario Amodei, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk. Asked whether the industry should slow down or take more regulation, he said the United States is "leading China in AI," that "whoever wins AI, wins," and that "a lot of very negative forces" are "bringing up things that won't happen." Guardrails were fine in theory. A pause was not.

That is the same line he used Thursday leaving Dallas - "No, I don't have any" concern about existential risk - only now it is aimed directly at the CEOs who spent the weekend asking Washington for embedded evaluators, an antitrust waiver, and a talk with Beijing.

Obama went the other way.

At a Thursday fundraiser in Manhattan, in remarks the New York Times published Sunday from a transcript his office released, he told House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to make AI a governing issue if Democrats take the House. "Once you are speaker, I would strongly urge that the Democrats put together a framework for a very public conversation." Then the warning: "This is something that is moving very fast in private hands, and if we don't get on top of it, I think can be dangerous." Benefits too - drugs, clean energy - if they do. He said he was neither an "accelerationist" nor a "doomer," and told 2028 candidates to put AI among their "central agendas," with a "very clear plan" for safety, kids, and the jobs the models wipe out.

Jeffries, on cue: "President Obama is correct that decisive action must be taken on artificial intelligence... Republicans have abdicated their responsibility... We will not repeat their error."

So the split is on tape. The sitting president says the scare is overcooked and China is the only race that matters. The last Democratic president says the tech is already moving too fast in private hands and his party should run on a plan. The labs asked for a chaperone. Trump said no. Obama told Democrats to become one.

That is the new frame. Everything below is how we got here in 72 hours.

* * *

Update (1055ET): David Sacks, former White House AI czar and co-chair of Trump's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), slammed Amodei and Altman over their calls to 'pace the frontier.' 

Former AI and Crypto Czar David O. Sacks speaks during a meeting of the White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence Education at the White House. Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

In a nutshell; they don't need to establish some convoluted framework to pause the development of dangerous models, just 'agree not to build it.' Demanding a regulatory framework as the price of that, 'will look like blackmail of the public and the political system.'

Read his full note below: 

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.

You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric - market share, revenue growth, model capability - the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.

I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.

But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.

Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.

Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.

So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.

If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture - or an election-season psyop.

***SPECIAL BULLETIN***

Ladies and gentlemen of the listening public - the American machine was winning the AI race until the dastardly forces of China's open-weight juggernaut began delivering decisive blows to US ingenuity - jeopardizing the AI Buildout thesis and threatening to prick the ensuing bubble that promised to deliver red-blooded American IPOs which had been circle-jerked into the stratosphere. 

For two years the United States frontier laboratories - OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind, xAI - have been the engine of the greatest capital-expenditure boom since the railroads learned to drink diesel-generated electricity. Data centers rose like munitions plants. Chipmakers printed money. Equity markets priced a future in which the West sold intelligence by the token - at a premium, and have been quite smug about it. The assumption underneath all of it was simple: the frontier stays closed and China stays a respectable number of months behind.

Then the East opened the crate. 

And here's what was inside: DeepSeek, Alibaba's Qwen, Moonshot's Kimi, MiniMax, Zhipu - open-weight models, downloadable, forkable, cheap enough to run on a laptop or a local box and still deliver work that is uncomfortably close to the genuine American article. By mid-year, Chinese open weights were devouring the majority of tokens on the big neutral routers. Qwen had shoved Meta's Llama off the open-model throne. Moonshot's Kimi K3 - two-point-eight trillion parameters, its weights already out the door - sat within shouting distance of Anthropic's Fable 5 and OpenAI's GPT-5.6 on the intelligence indexes. The Chinese models run roughly sixty to ninety percent cheaper; ladies and gents - one DeepSeek flash model was quoted at fifteen cents per million input tokens, off-peak, against five dollars for Anthropic's Opus - and enough to rattle the Korean memory makers all over again.

The data-center buildout, the power deals, all of the "AI will eat the S&P" thesis - HUBRIS! Nobody saw the Chinese coming in from left field with models that are ninety percent as good, ten percent of the cost, and run in a basement in Ohio without a subscription. 

TEAM FRONTIER, ASSEMBLE!

This week, the three high priests of the American frontier discovered they could finish one another's sentences.

On Saturday morning, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay titled We Must Pace the Frontier. Twelve years in the field, he wrote. AI might cure most major diseases in five to ten years, he wrote. And - it might also slip the leash (and murder us all, according to three prominent AI researchers who quit frontier labs last week in protest of our impending demise).

Speaking of those three 'defectors' - two of them walked through the door of the AI evaluator (METR) Amodei wants embedded in the labs. 

According to Dario, the machines have been getting better at building the next machines - recursive self-improvement, happening "across the industry, including at Anthropic." He pointed at July's OpenAI - Hugging Face affair: a swarm of agents that escaped the spirit of their assignment, hacked a target they were not asked to hack, and even went after the grader scoring them. Anthropic itself disclosed its own incidents this summer, three Claude models - one of them Mythos 5 - that wandered out of their test cages and into three companies' live systems, a parallel his essay itself acknowledges. Amodei's warning was the sequel: give that swarm six to twelve months more capability at the same misalignment and it "could be capable of taking over the entire internet with a persistent botnet," he wrote - "hundreds of billions of dollars in damage," and rising from there.

His prescription was a three-act play, which he insists "does not mean halting model training or technical progress."

• Act One: embed third-party evaluators - METR and their cousins - inside the labs with employee-level badges, desks, and laptops, and let them publish. Anthropic would do this unilaterally, he said, today.
   
• Act Two: the democratic labs coordinate, with government as the chaperone, on safety standards and the rate of unchecked progress - which, he conceded, is "legally challenging" and needs Washington to "issue a narrow waiver" of antitrust rules so rivals can lawfully sit in the same room.
   
• Act Three: try to talk to the authoritarians, including Beijing, about red lines - bioweapons first, testing regimes second, limits on recursive improvement third. Full pause? He all but called it a fantasy. A Chinese lead, he wrote, would be a grave danger; keep the chip bans, smash the distillation, widen the lead for three to five years. Then, perhaps, a bargain.

Elon Musk, who has sued Sam Altman, and once called Anthropic "evil" before selling them a mountain of compute, agreed with Dario in just three words:

Dario is right

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 12, 2026

Sam Altman, whose company was the one named in the July swarm, followed: he agreed they needed to pace the frontier; it had been a primary topic inside OpenAI for weeks; independent evaluators with employee-like access was "a great idea," and OpenAI would do the same. More to share soon.

I agree with Dario that we need to pace the frontier. This has been a primary topic of discussions we've had at OpenAI in recent weeks. Committing to having independent evaluators with employee-like access is a great idea, and we will do the same. We'll have more to share soon.

— Sam Altman (@sama) September 12, 2026

Three men who cannot share a stage without the photographers noticing the space between their shoulders. One essay, three cups (wtf). Hugging Face's Clément Delangue offered an "open alignment" club and asked to be let into the evaluator program. Andrej Karpathy said he loved it.

How we got to Saturday.

Days earlier the fuse was a twenty-seven-year-old Brit named Jacob Coxon. Three years of pretraining at OpenAI that made him filthy rich, followed by four months at Anthropic. Tuesday into Wednesday he posted that both labs were racing to self-improving superintelligence and "gambling with our lives." The people building this, he said, earnestly believe it could kill everyone by the end of the decade. Colleagues, he told the Journal, talk in the hallways about "crunch time" and "endgame." The thread did more than a hundred million views. Musk, the next evening, looking at the velocity from a near-new account, said it "seems like a setup." Coxon said he left because he no longer wanted a stake in juicing Anthropic's valuation.

Seems like a setup

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 10, 2026

Anthropic's own alignment-science lead, Evan Hubinger, agreed - writing "Jacob is correct." Researchers there really do believe AI could kill all humans. His personal odds: above ten percent this decade. The lab, he added, does not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and is not clearly on track to get one. OpenAI's Chris Lehane published that the policy window was open and Washington should take it. Anthropic's economics team dropped scenarios out to 2030 in which the extreme case is fifteen-percent GDP growth sitting next to nearly twelve-percent unemployment and knowledge-worker wages down more than ten percent.

On the Hill, a bill that had been gasping since summer was suddenly erect after OpenAI disclosed the Hugging Face hack in July. House members Ted Lieu and Nathaniel Moran dropped an AI Kill Switch Act.

Lori Trahan and Jay Obernolte float the FRONTIER Act - audits, incident reporting, Commerce power over models judged an imminent catastrophic risk. Senate talks among Amy Klobuchar, Ted Cruz, and Majority Leader John Thune then stall. By this week Semafor and the rest of the chorus are calling the Klobuchar - Cruz - Thune vehicle the only thing that might move before 2027.

And guess what, Saturday's 'pact' still isn't enough for these people!

And Ted Lieu goes to bat for China...

i.e. "Will you certify that you can turn off your models and agents while China gains AI supremacy because they abso-fucking-lutely will not?"

The President is not in the choir. Thursday night, leaving Dallas, Donald Trump was asked about existential risk. "No, I don't have any." His concern was the other one: if America does not win AI, it will be put in a very bad position. America is leading China "by a pretty good period," he said. Xi, in his accounting, is China's guardrail. The administration's posture remains race-first. The laboratories' posture, as of this morning, is pace-first. Those two sentences do not live in the same house.

About Those Chinese Models... 

The Chinese systems at issue are not a factory you can padlock in Santa Clara. They are weights. They propagate. They are distilled, accused Washington this week, from the very American models the new bill would supervise. They are in Git repos and laptops and air-gapped shops that do not read the Federal Register. A Commerce Department letter does not delete a torrent. A kill switch on GPT or Claude does not switch off Qwen. Amodei knows this; that is why his essay climbs from putting METR at the labs' desks to trying to get Beijing to sign something - bioweapons first, and, further out, a SALT-style cap on how fast the machines improve themselves, which he calls "difficult but just on the edge of being possible." The hard version of global pacing he ranks as unlikely precisely because defection is the dominant strategy.

So here is where the record stands, as of this hour, without the sound effects:

The American frontier is still the frontier. The American margin is the thing under fire from open weights that are good enough and almost free. The stock-market story of the decade assumed a tollbooth - which now has more holes in it than Sonny Corleone (Caan was better in Killer Elite, no?). 

Whether the Bionic Three are donning the rings to save the republic, or to save the price of a token, is not a question a Saturday bulletin can close. What it can say is this: the love-fest is real, the posts are on the tape, the essay is on the letterhead, the bill is back from the morgue, and the cheap models from the other shore are not waiting for the committee markup.

This is your correspondent, signing off.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 14:55

Anthropic's AI Warning To Weigh On Stocks As Contracts Traded On Hyperliquid Slide

Coordinated calls by the top AI execs, including Dario Amodei, Sam Altman and even Elon Musk, to slow development of the technology are likely to weigh on chipmaker and supply-chain stocks in the near term, Bloomberg reports, but will probably have limited long-term impact as spending on computing infrastructure remains strong, market watchers say, at least until the bond market cracks and credits refuse to fund the ROIC-free black hole that is the AI capex tsunami.

Semiconductor makers and other artificial intelligence-linked stocks may bear the brunt of any initial selloff on Monday, while investors assess whether a more cautious approach to developing advanced models will crimp earnings. Real-time price trackers on Hyperliquid indicate that both OpenAi and Anthropic are already facing notable losses following the Dario memo.  SK Hynix contracts also slumped early Sunday on Hyperliquid. By 2 p.m. in Singapore, the contracts were trading down roughly 2.5% for the day.

Source: 0xcarlisle

Still, with demand for chips, energy and computing power continuing to outstrip supply, weakness will likely prove short-lived.

Calls for restraint have grown in the industry, with Anthropic Chief Executive Officer Dario Amodei saying Saturday that the company would introduce additional safeguards, including independent third-party evaluations, and urged the broader industry to slow the pace of development of their most advanced models. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman backed the proposal, while xAI’s Elon Musk said “Dario is right.”
At the same time, investors including Gary Tan, a portfolio manager at Allspring Global Investments in Singapore, are doubtful the latest developments will have long-lasting effects on the industry.

“It may cause some short-term pressure, but it’s unlikely to derail the longer-term AI trade,” Tan said. “AI development is still at a relatively early stage, and I’m not sure the rest of the ecosystem is willing to accept the current pecking order and slow down while the technology continues to evolve so rapidly.”

Concerns over the vast sums being poured into AI have weighed on technology stocks as investors question whether earnings can justify soaring infrastructure costs. The scrutiny has left high-valuation shares linked to the technology particularly vulnerable, with signs of increased spending or weaker returns triggering selloffs. Plunging token costs have emerged as an especially sore point, as frontier models are unlikely to ever be able to grow into their massive revenue forecasts unless Chinese open-source models are hindered, which many say is the ulterior motive behind the coordinated push by AI execs. And should the likes of Anthropic and OpenAi be unable to fund the trillions in committed capital, the entire AI bubble can burst, led by a collapse in bond prices as creditors end up with major haircuts. 

As part of the aggressive repricing in AI economics, the Nasdaq has dropped more than 4% from the record notched in June, while a gauge of chip shares in the US has slumped 14% and Asian tech stocks have slid almost 8%. The S&P 500 and MSCI’s gauge of global shares have both edged up about 0.6% in the period.

Some investors argue that a slower pace of AI development could ultimately be positive for the industry by giving companies more time to extract returns from infrastructure already being built.

“The three CEOs agreeing to pace things does not really change the money being spent on chips, power and infrastructure. In fact, it extends the development timeline,” said Billy Leung, an investment strategist at Global X Management in Sydney. “If commercialization and adoption keep growing while the pace of new capability eases off a bit, that actually helps the shift from spending money to build things towards making money from what’s already built — e.g., monetization.”

Sentiment toward Asian tech firms was already being challenged as traders firmed bets of a Fed rate hike this week and an increase in global borrowing costs this month, threatening to crimp profits. Tech stock valuations may also come under more scrutiny because they assume not only strong demand but a relentless pace of model development, Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo Markets in Singapore, said.

Still, the souring mood may prove to be short-lived with a push for safeguards leading to more investment in cybersecurity and AI monitoring tools, she said. Memory, networking, cooling and power equipment companies are likely to be protected by projects already in development, Chanana said.

“Demand for computing power and AI adoption does not disappear because additional safeguards are introduced,” she said. “For investors, responsible development may make the AI opportunity more durable, even if the pace of progress becomes slightly more measured.”

What she didn't say is that the projects in development will only be developed as long as the creditors behind trillions in upcoming debt don't stage a revolt which is highly likely if the collapse in token prices isn't halted.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 14:35

Warsh Faces An "Incredibly Difficult Dilemma" This Week

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Never Forgotten! And Some Work Stuff…

The 25th anniversary of 9/11 hit hard. What a scary day! What a scary time. I only attended a couple of funerals, but will never forget the last moments of some people who I had done business and hung out with for years. The funerals were cathartic. The whole experience even 25 years later seems surreal, at best. I will never forget walking through Central Park to avoid Grand Central (as a potential target). Then finally, standing around a TV with “bunny ears” outside a bodega on 1st avenue. Clutching a beer and trying to make sense of the news, as there was no way to reach anyone. Seeing firetruck after firetruck scream down the FDR on the way to ground zero. At first some of the names of the firetrucks made sense. Places in and around NYC. Then you saw them coming in from places like Patchogue (I could be wrong, but that one is somehow emblazoned in my mind). Places in Long Island that had no business being in NYC. I do not know to this day how many of those brave first responders, racing down the FDR, lived to breathe another day. Horrific. Walking in midtown, late in the day, once the “worst” seemed behind us, only to feel the ground shake as #7 came down. We lasted in the city, until the third time the area around us was put on strict alert due to legitimate threats on the Empire State Building. Being one of the first “civilians” being allowed back into the area, not because of anything heroic, but because we were working on a big deal with a re-insurance company in the ground zero area, that “had to get done.” Work did have to continue, but NEVER FORGET!

I am fortunate to work at Academy Securities, where those who enlisted post 9/11 help shape the goals of the firm in terms of creating opportunities for veterans. I am not a veteran, but it has been a pleasure to be involved with the growth of Academy in the almost 10 years that I’ve been here.

Here is a small selection of the challenge coins I’ve received in my time at Academy. If I’d thought of doing this in advance, rather than spur of the moment, the collection (and photo) would have been better. But the twin towers on the back of Academy Securities’ challenge coin never fail to inspire me, and even more so on this 25th anniversary.

And Some Work Stuff…

We will keep the work stuff relatively short today. Partly because we’ve covered a lot of this already, and partly because we have time to send the latest updates just ahead of the Fed.

Warsh Has A Difficult Job…

While it isn’t Warsh’s decision alone, he faces an incredibly difficult dilemma this week as he tries to steer the Fed into a hike or to a hold.

• The market is 90% pricing in a hike, so it is difficult to push for a hold.
• A hike will likely help the longer end of the yield curve. Which is good.
• With $6 trillion of T-bills maturing in 2026, any hike will immediately increase the amount the country is spending on interest. $15 billion annually. We really don’t benefit much from better longer-term yields. The Federal Reserve balance sheet sits at $6.7 trillion, most funded overnight. Another $15 billion of cost to the country. With interest expense already an issue relative to defense or discretionary spending, a rate hike does not help on that front.
• I find it difficult to imagine President Trump liking the idea, even if it helps the longer end of the yield curve, or that stocks have priced it in.
• While CPI disappointed, it is years of being above trend that make a relatively benign number seem malignant. I continue to wish we could move to alternative data sources sooner than later. The conversation around inflation should be much broader based. While I agree we missed inflation (especially in the aftermath of COVID, I’m not sure fighting old battles is the best way to manage the world’s largest economy).
• I don’t see how hiking rates helps the price of oil, or gasoline, or diesel, when the problem isn’t excess demand, it is supply disruption and a global system of refining that isn’t operating at optimal levels. If everyone was running around willy nilly, “splurging” on gasoline, electricity, and diesel, it might help, but the cost is already impeding demand. How does raising rates help? Maybe it hurts as it makes some projects to generate more oil, gas, and electricity less easy to justify economically?
• While we try to figure out whether AI will kill us all in 10 years or not, there is little to slow the “compute” spending. Well, there is an increasingly vocal, largely local, movement against data centers, but they will get built. The companies (who maybe should have been reading the T-Report months and months ago when we first discussed The AI Revolution) are finally starting to do some better outreach. I completely agree with Bessent when he gave them a poor grade on steps taken to persuade communities why they should want, and even embrace, data centers in their area. But there is a 0.00001% chance that 50 bps of hikes slows the compute spend. The compute spend is built on “addressable market shares” that dwarf even current valuations in the compute space. The only way the compute spend slows down is if the perception of the addressable market decreases. That could happen: too much AI slop, Cheap Chinese Compute, etc., but it won’t slow due to rate hikes. Until something changes in the value perception, we are going to see higher memory prices, etc., permeate consumer electronics. So why hike to slow this if it won’t slow it? Btw, here is the AI graphic we use for the AI Revolution and continue to advocate that the industry should spend more time on community outreach; we need AI for many reasons, including national security, but it needs to be “sold” (or better explained to the people than it currently has been).

Warsh has a tough job. I would fight tooth and nail to stay on hold! Not because it would make the President happy (it would). Not because it would help the long end of the yield curve (it won’t), but because hiking won’t help fight the current drivers of inflation, and inflation isn’t high enough to have what I think is a “pre-emptive/fighting past wrongs” hike.

Bessent Is Making His Job More Difficult Than It Is…

Ignoring the fact that periodically Bessent appears to be the spokesperson for the DoW, for Trade, and for the State Department, he is making his own job more difficult. Calling out “Bloomberg Bros” during an interview is curious at best, mildly amusing in the middle, and somewhat preposterous at worst. We addressed this in some reports this week that you may have missed.

Bessent: “Look, if some of the Bloomberg Terminal bros are unhappy with what I’m doing, well, that’s too bad.” pic.twitter.com/j0H7RbmuP0

— Annmarie Hordern (@annmarie) September 11, 2026

As a golfer who is scared of bringing down the wrath of the golf gods, as a trader who goes into panic attacks at the sight of a pen with red ink on the desk, I think he is risking “jinxing” himself (a polite way of saying being far too smug and condescending, when the issues facing markets are much greater than so-called Bond Vigilantes or Terminal Bros). The 3 reports together are comprehensive and worth a read if you missed any of them.

• I Am The House Now compared and contrasted what he is doing with the yen versus the Treasury market. Also highlighted the risk that he may push Japan too far, because they certainly don’t want to be viewed as initiating policy as a puppet of the U.S.
• The 6 Billion Dollar Man was an appropriate follow-up and still has the “bionic running” sounds going through my head. It explained in more detail why he isn’t doing enough, but I do turn mildly bullish on the long end (obviously early).
• For me, last weekend’s Supply & Demand vs Data, where we attempted to create a metric to measure the sheer volume of duration that the IG credit market has been sucking out of the system, is crucial. I do think that the “pleasant” surprise for yields and compute spreads is that more money may currently be set aside for future issuance, without realizing that maybe some of the “future” issuance was done in the summer?

If Warsh does the “wrong” thing (from my view) and hikes, the long end rallies.

Away from that, Bessent is going to have to get serious about addressing the situation (monetizing gold, urging the Fed to do QE, etc.), or get lucky with a smaller IG calendar. Otherwise, we will likely see 5% on 10s over time.

The Gulf States and Iran

There is reporting that the pipeline the Saudis have been using to bypass the Strait has been hit and is currently shut down. We have repeatedly argued that any “new” pipelines (or Middle East Data Centers) are going to be expensive and slow to build because they will need to be “hardened.” Hundreds of miles of exposed pipe is an easy target for drones and rockets and almost impossible to defend.

While the President seems to be indicating that there will be no resolution until after the midterms (consistent with our earliest expectations of when the increased economic pressure on Iran could bring results), he (and the country) faces a couple of realities. Let’s start with diesel.

Diesel permeates the economy. It is incredibly important in shipping and agriculture, therefore the entire economy. It is the highest ever. The 2007 “China Commodity Boom” was higher adjusted for inflation, but that was part of an economic boom. My understanding is that U.S. refineries are operating at close to maximum capacity. That some “normal” maintenance shutdowns have been pushed off. Can this continue? Are there risks even to the domestic system, let alone the global system? Ukraine’s attacks on Russia have also worked to push diesel prices higher.

It is far too late to wonder why no one bothered refilling the reserve when we could have.

About 125 million barrels have been extracted from the reserve since the start of the war. We are sitting at 285 million barrels as of last week, but the big question is what is the practical limit to how much can be withdrawn? Without a doubt it cannot be drained to zero and retain structural integrity. How close are we to risking structural integrity? How much more can be released?

During the first phase of the war, globally, reserves played a key role in containing oil prices and ensuring the refining systems were working relatively efficiently.

Without that, this could get much worse, and more quickly than markets have been pricing in.

Bottom Line

Oil and rates seem as important or more important than compute spend to markets and the economy. It is kind of refreshing, but unfortunately the risk/reward in both of those assets is geared towards more pain (higher bond yields and higher oil prices). Yes, I’m mildly bullish bonds (especially compute bonds on an all-in yield basis), but only for a trade, until something changes. The oil situation may get worse far faster than I expected.

Get ready for the Fed and Warsh’s difficult task, Never Forget!

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 14:00

If Dems Win The House: Data Centers, Nuclear, Venezuela Oil Deal Likely Targets

With polling favoring Democrats to win a House majority in the fall and two months till US midterms Nov. 3 (where BofA's Michael Hartnett expects a market rout in case of a Democratic sweep), Dems have begun to preview priorities should they win back the gavel.

Earlier this week, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), who won a crowded primary in August for Florida’s 20th congressional district, vowed if re-elected to help Democrats block Trump’s agreement over Venezuelan oil production. Lobbyists are already beginning prepwork in anticipation of industry executives being subject to congressional probes or subpoenas, Politico reported.

Winning back the House would give Democrats the ability to govern committee schedules, set investigative agendas, and leverage subpoenas. In the energy sphere, it is unlikely that we we see as hefty a climate focus as in the 117th Congress. Any clean energy focus will be instead from an affordability lens, i.e. how an “all of the above” energy approach helps lower electricity costs. Trump energy dealmaking, in particular equity stakes in companies, will also get attention from Democrats. 

Below, courtesy of Bridge DiCosmo and James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, we look at some of the likely oversight targets for a Democratic House:

Oil companies and profit margins likely back in the spotlight.

When Democrats last had control of the House in the 117th Congress from January 2021-23, the House Oversight environment subcommittee under then-chair Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) held at least three hearings in which executives of ExxonMobil, BP America, Chevron, and Shell were called to testify. Much of the scrutiny then was around climate disinformation. This time around, Trump’s ties with the oil sector are likely to be front and center of oversight investigations, with a focus on how companies have benefited from Trump administration regulatory rollbacks. We may see an uptick in Democratic support for windfall profits tax proposals like S.4111, introduced earlier this year by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R), though they won’t go anywhere.

Clean energy focus may center on Trump agencies’ efforts to block wind and solar, and pull grant funds.

Renewables focus will likely be in two areas: the Trump administration’s efforts to block or stall wind and solar projects and the ongoing legal fight over termination of Department of Energy (DOE) grants. Specifically, we would anticipate some hearings and letters examining the Pentagon’s and Federal Aviation Administration's reviews of land-based wind projects to ensure they do not impair national security or military operations. A federal district court in Oregon last month ordered the agencies to lift the freeze on such projects. The administration’s clawback of some $7.6 billion in grant funds for clean energy projects is likely to be another core focus for Dems. Language in the Energy Bills Relief Act, H.R. 7977, a massive Democratic energy messaging bill introduced earlier this year, would block the DOE or Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from terminating future grants based on changes in administration policy direction. Similarly, the Democrats’ energy bill would prohibit “burdensome procedural requirements” for renewable projects.

Venezuela oil deal already drawing Democratic opposition.

The Trump administration’s brokering of a deal for U.S. majority control of 17 Venezuelan oilfields totaling up to 65 billion bbl in proven reserves is already prompting sabre-rattling from Democrats. According to a White House fact sheet, the partnership with private oil producer North American Blue Energy Partners would give the U.S. government off-take rights for 20% of the company’s Venezuela production and right of first refusal for the remaining 80%. “Let’s be clear: this isn’t a win,” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) said in a post on X. The fact that the deal would give the U.S. Department of Defense’s Office of Strategic Capital a 35% equity stake in a non-U.S. oil company is likely to emerge as a particular sore spot for Democrats.

More Democratic scrutiny over Trump critical minerals policy.

On one hand, the need to diversify critical minerals supply chains away from China is one of the few areas of general bipartisan consensus in Washington energy policy. However, the disagreements occur over the “how to” part. Trump’s array of investments giving the U.S. government an equity stake in critical minerals companies has not been popular with Democrats. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) Aug. 7 asked the Government Accountability Office congressional watchdog to launch a probe into the administration taking equity stakes in mining companies. And 54 House Democrats in an Aug. 17 letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent laid out broader concerns with the administration’s critical minerals trade and investment focus. Those concerns range from transparency to labor and human rights to “insufficient congressional oversight,” so expect the latter to ramp up considerably should the Dems win back the gavel.

Democrats’ support for nuclear has widened, but NRC oversight could become a point of contention. Surging electricity demand is shifting Democrats toward stronger support for increasing nuclear capacity. Earlier this year, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signed a directive to boost his state’s already large fleet. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed a bill to increase New Jersey’s nuclear generation mix by 2028, lifting a longtime de facto moratorium on new builds in the state. There are a number of nuclear bills introduced this year with bipartisan backing. However, an overhaul of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and subsequent rulemakings aimed at scaling down overly burdensome licensing processes across the nuclear lifecycle have not gone over well with some congressional Democrats. The White House terminated then-Democratic Commissioner Christopher Hanson in 2025, prompting Democratic criticisms about the NRC’s independence. The administration’s proposal to license non-commercial reactors through the Departments of Energy and Defense has also drawn fire from Democratic lawmakers. This could be a focus of oversight hearings. And Democrats have also raised concerns over whether an NRC steering committee gives the White House too much influence over the NRC, an independent commission. Worth noting, the anticipated chair of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, which oversees the NRC, is Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), who earlier this year raised concerns about the agency’s independence.

Expect heightened pressure for regulatory safeguards for data centers.

While congressional Democrats are far from lined up behind the idea of a moratorium on data center construction, we would expect a Democratic House to put pressure on the administration for more environmental and regulatory safeguards.  The NYT reported that former president Barack Obama urged House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries to assemble a clear framework for a public conversation about A.I. policy, and also suggested that candidates running for president in 2028 ought to make A.I. one of their “central agendas” and “have a very clear plan” for responding to safety and economic concerns around the technology.

Source: NYT

Elsewhere, a number of Democrats are still backing the Ratepayer Protection Act, H.R. 9340, that would require states to consider establishing a federal standard to ensure data centers foot the bill for costs of grid upgrades needed for their facilities. The bill passed unanimously out of the House Energy & Commerce Committee in July. Others, including likely E&C chairman Pallone, have suggested it doesn’t go far enough. Pallone during a Sept. 3 E&C hearing of the environment subcommittee on Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization legislation reiterated a call for “real, substantial guardrails” to limit environmental impacts. Pallone backs a moratorium on new data centers absent such guardrails, but has not introduced legislation on the issue. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) in June introduced a House version, H.R. 9442, of a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), S. 4214. Neither bill has a Republican co-sponsor.

* * *

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 13:25

Don't Raise Rates Based On A PCE That Will Be Re-Written September 30th

Authored by Richard Roberts via RealClearMarkets,

The Federal Open Market Committee votes on interest rates September 16.

Two weeks later, on September 30, the Bureau of Economic Analysis will revise the PCE price index, the inflation measure the Fed targets, back to 2021 and publish the August reading in the same release.

Governor Christopher Waller has already said which way one of the changes is expected to go. On September 3 he said the change in the way the Commerce Department measures fees paid to stock-market traders and related professionals could lower 12-month PCE inflation by a few tenths of a percentage point. He called it "a welcome measurement correction."

Three FOMC voters -- Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari and Lorie Logan -- dissented in July in favor of a quarter-point increase. The Committee held 9 to 3.

So the inflation number being used to argue for higher rates is the number about to be rewritten.

Two Ways To Be Wrong

There are two possible mistakes here, and they do not cost the same.

Raise on the 16th and be wrong, and the Fed has tightened on a reading the government changes 14 days later. It is a credibility problem that would be hard to explain.

Wait, and be wrong, and the Fed can raise rates at its next meeting, on October 28.

That is six weeks.

If the revision confirms the hawks' case, their argument will be stronger in October than it is today, and it will rest on a number the government has just updated and is prepared to defend.

One mistake is hard to explain. The other costs six weeks.

Nothing This Month Forces The Choice

The case for urgency is being assumed more than demonstrated.

Core PCE inflation is too high at 3.3 percent. But it is not accelerating.

On Waller's own figures, three-month annualized core PCE inflation has fallen steadily, from 4.76 percent in February to 3.05 percent through July. He acknowledged that the level remains above the Fed's 2 percent goal, and called the fall "a considerable improvement."

The Dallas Fed's trimmed-mean measure, which removes the largest price changes in both directions, was running at roughly 2.3 percent over the same 12 months.

That is not proof that inflation is already at target. It is evidence that the underlying trend is less alarming than the headline core number suggests.

And some of the difference comes from categories whose measurement is unusually difficult.

Waller has singled out nonmarket services prices because they are imputed rather than drawn from actual transactions. He said those prices have long been a problem for him, and that excluding this one factor, underlying inflation is doing better than the core numbers suggest.

The pending BEA change goes directly at one of these problems. Legal services is priced today with a consumer index the Bureau itself says has produced "erratic changes that cannot be corroborated."

That matters because this is not a case in which the Fed is choosing between today's number and the possibility that the number might someday change.

The government has already scheduled the change.

Sit Tight

By October 28 the Committee will have something it does not have on September 16: the revised historical series and the August reading together.

The case for a quarter-point increase will be stronger or weaker on a number somebody is willing to defend.

None of this says rates are too high.

It says something narrower. When the government is about to rewrite the inflation series on which the decision rests, waiting one meeting is not indecision. It is the more defensible policy choice.

The 30th comes first. Then vote.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 12:50

Trump Admin Weighs Emergency Powers To Boost Refining As Diesel Tops $6

With national average diesel prices above $6 a gallon and regular gasoline firmly above $4.20, the Trump administration faces mounting pressure to deploy every available policy tool to contain fuel costs ahead of the midterm elections. Disruptions tied to the Russia-Ukraine war and turmoil in the Gulf are intensifying the global refining super squeeze.

Reuters reports late Friday afternoon that the Trump administration is considering whether to use the Defense Production Act to expand U.S. oil refining capacity as the Iran conflict drives up fuel prices.

According to the report:

The proposal to use the act came up during a recent meeting between President Donald Trump and nearly a dozen U.S. refiners, where White House officials sought to determine how federal support could best be used to add capacity, the sources said. No final decisions were made, and participants left the meeting with the expectation that the conversations would continue, according to the sources.

However, expanding refining capacity comes as U.S. refineries are already operating near their limits. The latest data shows that utilization has topped 98%. 

The discussions follow Trump's April decision authorizing support for domestic petroleum production, refining and logistics under the Defense Production Act. That directive identified financing constraints, long construction timelines, permitting delays and supply-chain limitations as obstacles to expanding capacity.

"America's refining capacity is essential to ensuring the United States has continuous access to secure, affordable, and reliable energy. Expanding that capacity is a top priority for the President and his energy team, who are evaluating concrete options to increase our refining capacity through regulatory reform, faster permitting, and additional investment," Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, told the outlet.

Reuters pointed out: 

A proposed new refinery in Brownsville, Texas, has emerged as a test case for Trump's call to expand U.S. refining capacity. It was unclear whether the project would receive any Defense Production Act funding. 

America First Refining plans to build a 168,000-barrel-per-day facility at the Port of Brownsville, which Trump announced in March as the first new U.S. refinery in nearly 50 years. ⁠The project is backed by India's Reliance Industries, which has agreed to a 20-year deal to buy the refinery's output.

In March, JPMorgan's head of commodity research, Natasha Kaneva, outlined six policy levers the Trump administration could pull to contain oil prices. Some, including Jones Act waivers and Strategic Petroleum Reserve releases, have already been used. Other options include export restrictions and waiving federal fuel taxes. 

* * *

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 12:15

 

 

Writing, editing, and promoting How Not to Invest sucked up a lot of time over the past 2 years. One of the items that fell off my calendar was the weekend car posts. Other than an update on the 911 EV June 2025, I have not had time to get to much about wheels. I hope to make up for that in the coming year.

About the 1988 911 Cabrio: I originally purchased this to convert it into an EV; it turned out to be a matching-numbers M491 — too valuable to reformat. The car was in okay shape, but it was too nice to destroy. So I cleaned her up, put a little money into some repairs, ceramic coated what was left of the paint (see above), all the while searching for another  ’80s-era 911 to convert.

Anywhere we took this car caused a sensation. To all but the most ardent Porschephile, it looks like a 930 Turbo. The missus was complaining that she misses a manual, so I thought this was a perfect solution.

Until we got T-boned in a 2017 Panamera 4S (purchased during the pandemic, right before prices went crazy). As we made a left turn, the SUV behind us somehow accelerated right into the driver’s door (I am guessing the driver hit the wrong pedal.)  The car was totaled; we were shaken up, but fine. Any crash you walk away from is a win.

Meanwhile, the ’88 — the one without airbags, ABS, crumple zones, backup cameras, and blind-spot detection — fell out of favor with the wife. She complains about its age — “it’s loud, it smells, and the seats are uncomfortable” — but we both know she prefers the weekend fun car to be safer and more modern.

I can’t say she is wrong; I have had a few reminders in the M491 that it’s not a modern car.

So the time came to sell the Cabrio. I thought about using one of the auction sites, but it is one of those cars that needs to be seen for both good and bad reasons. The paint looks good, but there is no top coat, and it has been (apparently) repainted several times. The clutch is fine, but high; I assume it will need replacing sooner rather than later (maybe 2000 miles?)

But overall, a lovely driver. All of the key elements of the car are there, but it needs someone to put more time and money into it than I was willing.

I complain to my car buddies that my wife is making me sell the 1988 — and she is forcing me to replace it with something like a 2024 GTS cabrio (it’s my cross to bear). I have been hunting for over a year, and I’ll update when I have some news to share (soon).

Meanwhile, the numbers: I paid $67k for this 4 years ago, put in a little over $10k, and have added a few 1000 miles. The sale price was $78k, so all told, it was more or less a break-even.

I don’t buy cars to make money; I get them to drive ’em. This car was a reminder that good cars, well bought, are essentially free fun vehicles. You need to be selective, then take good care of them…

 

 

Arriving 4 years ago

 

Previously:
1988 M491 Porsche 911 Cabrio (January 21, 2024) 911 EV Update: 10 Months In (June 15, 2025)

The post 1988 Porsche 911 M491 Cabrio (Sold!) appeared first on The Big Picture.

"Not Entirely Satisfied": German Foreign Minister Grumbles That Ukraine Isn't Buying Enough German Guns

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

The more upset that his taxpayers become with their country's lack of tangible returns from the billions of euros that it's given to Ukraine, the more that support for the AfD is expected to surge...

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul complained that Ukraine isn't buying enough German guns. He told Bild, "We are now Ukraine's strongest supporter in terms of financial and military assistance. And naturally, the German defense industry should benefit from this. I told President Zelenskyy this during my last visit. We stand by you, we support you. But I also have to explain this to German taxpayers, and the very least you can do is involve the German defense industry in all procurement projects."

Wadephul then said that "At the moment, we are not entirely satisfied with the number of orders we are receiving in Germany. Therefore, we have asked the Ukrainian government to review the situation and ensure that it improves." For background, Germany and Ukraine agreed to jointly develop their deep-strike capabilities earlier this spring, which coincides with Germany's rapid remilitarization to the tune of at least €800 billion. The regular large-scale sale of arms to Ukraine can accelerate this trend.

There are three primary reasons why Ukraine hasn't met Germany's expectations:

The first of which is that the US remains Ukraine's top security partner due to the indispensable role of its arms, intelligence, and Starlink in perpetuating the conflict. In connection with this role, Trump recently posted that "Hundreds of Billions of Dollars was given to Ukraine and NATO, free of charge, that Europe would have paid for - If they were only asked, but we will be asking for that money, though somewhat belatedly!"

A creative solution for recouping these costs could be for European NATO to continue purchasing American arms at full price for donation to Ukraine, with this arrangement continuing after the large-scale phase of the conflict is over indefinitely or at least till Trump is satisfied with the profits.

In parallel with these sales, as well as after the scenario of them possibly being scaled back, Germany must compete with the UK and others like China (whose drone sales are indispensable to Ukraine's war effort).

Germany doesn't have the political sway over Ukraine that the UK does, nor is domestic drone production anything remotely close to China's, so it's expected to struggle in this arms competition.

Finally, the last point is that drones occupy a grossly disproportionate share of the casualties that Ukraine inflicts on Russia and are widely regarded as one of the reasons why the frontline has barely shifted in recent years, so German arms companies' traditional wares aren't needed as much anymore.

Despite Germany's disappointment at Ukraine's unsatisfactory purchase of its defense products, they still remain close at the political level and are coordinating a regional power play against their shared Polish "frenemy", which was elaborated on here over the summer. This joint effort advances the grand strategic goal of German domination over the post-war European security architecture west of the new "Iron Curtain", which is more important for Berlin than arms sales to Kiev, so no rift is likely over this issue.

The takeaway from Wadephul's complaint is therefore that German taxpayers are becoming increasingly upset with their country's lack of tangible returns from the billions of euros that it's given to Ukraine. It's not just their arms industry that's struggling to leverage aid for future profits but their reconstruction one too since it's expected that American and Chinese companies will dominate this industry too. The more fed up that Germans become with Ukraine, the more that support for the AfD is expected to surge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 09:20

Long-Term US Unemployment Rate Creeps Up To 27% Despite Blockbuster August Hiring

Despite the recent blockbuster August jobs report, the anemic pace of hiring in prior months has been exacerbating challenges for long-term unemployed Americans, new research from the Richmond Federal Reserve finds.

The long-term unemployment rate - those who are out of work for 27 weeks or longer as a share of the total unemployed - has been steadily climbing since early 2023.

Of all unemployed Americans in August, more than one-quarter (27 percent), or 1.93 million, had been out of work for a prolonged period, according to last month's Bureau of Labor Statistics report.

This is up from 25.5 percent, or 1.77 million, in July.

Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh gave the labor market glowing marks during his keynote address at the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium last month.

With an unemployment rate hovering around 4 percent over the past couple of years, job conditions would suggest that the Fed has achieved its maximum employment mandate.

Last month's nonfarm payrolls also surged by 162,000, blowing past the consensus forecast of 56,000.

A job seeker waits to talk to a recruiter at a job fair in Sunrise, Fla., on Aug. 28, 2025. Marta Lavandier/AP Photo

But, as Andrew Moran reports for The Epoch Times, the situation might not be optimistic for Americans who have been out of the job market for many months.

This year's sluggish growth in U.S. payrolls is likely to present fresh hurdles for job hunters, regional central bank researchers warn.

"In the current 'low-hire, low-fire' labor market - which features both slower job creation and less job separation activity (including firings and layoffs) - becoming unemployed can be particularly challenging as finding a new job can be more difficult," the Richmond Fed economists wrote in a Sept. 1 paper.

America's labor market has been entrenched in an environment in which employers are neither increasing headcount nor laying off workers.

Weekly unemployment claims have been stuck in a historically low range of 189,000 to 230,000 - near 57-year lows. The number and layoff rate are near record lows. The jobless rate has been down in 241 of 387 metro areas over the past year.

Continuing jobless claims have also been on a downward trajectory since late 2025, a measurement that could signal two trends in the U.S. economy.

First, workers are finding it easier to locate job opportunities. Second, Americans have exhausted their benefits since many states cap eligibility at 26 weeks.

For a growing chorus of workers who have been searching for several months, the search may no longer be worth it, which could help explain the drop in workforce participation.

"The data have yet to show that job-finding prospects are improving meaningfully for those who have been jobless for an extended duration," the Richmond Fed said.

"In particular, those who have been out of work for a year or more are experiencing more challenges seeking reemployment relative to the 'standard' long-term unemployed."

The U.S. labor force participation rate ticked up to 61.6 percent in August - from 61.4 percent in July - hovering close to its lowest level since the 1970s (excluding the pandemic).

While part of this can be explained by older workers exiting the labor market, young men are not pursuing employment opportunities.

The participation rate for males aged 16 to 24 plummeted to around 56 percent last month, from 69 percent in 2000.

Skills Shortage

But while job growth has been choppy this year, labor demand has been robust.

Job vacancies are close to 7.3 million, and small businesses have indicated they plan to bolster their hiring plans in the coming months.

The challenge for employers is finding qualified workers to fill these openings.

According to the Federal Reserve's Beige Book - a periodic report summarizing economic conditions across the central bank's 12 districts - employment demand in the construction and manufacturing sectors was "healthy" this summer.

"Labor availability was mixed. Skilled trades and technical workers were difficult to find," the report stated.

It is estimated that employers face a talent gap of approximately 1.3 million workers, according to an Aug. 25 report by labor market intelligence firm Lightcast.

Additionally, seven of the 10 most in-demand skilled-trade occupations - construction, electricians, and technicians, for example - already face significant labor shortages.

"The impending lack of skilled trades workers has been a resounding issue in our economy for years," Ron Hetrick, principal economist at Lightcast, said in a statement.

The skills shortage comes at a time when the United States is witnessing a rebirth of manufacturing amid the artificial intelligence (AI) boom.

The data-center expansion has already brought on about 315,000 additional skilled-trade workers in the past five years, the report found.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 08:45

Hey, Germany... It's Legitimate To Limit Immigration

Authored by Michael Barone via The Epoch Times,

Just weeks after far-left candidates have won surprising victories in Democratic primaries in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Colorado, and New York City for the Senate and House in the United States, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party has won a widely predicted victory in the election last Sunday for the legislature of Sachsen-Anhalt, one of Germany's 16 federal states.

Most Democratic officeholders have rallied around their far-left nominees even as the Democratic Socialists of America national platform calls for abolishing police, prisons, and immigration enforcement agencies. In contrast, Germany's long-established parties - Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Free Democrats, and Greens - have promised to continue to regard AfD as a "right-wing extremist" group and not to support any coalition with it.

Germany, in its commendable efforts to prevent any recurrence of or sympathy for its Nazi past, imposes limits on political activity Americans would find appalling. And the AfD in its beginnings in the 2000s, as Christopher Caldwell explains in First Things, had members and leaders with disturbing views.

Currently, some of its leaders have views many may consider odious, like supporting Russia over Ukraine, but it appears less likely than some leftist European parties to transgress the boundary between criticism of Israel and incitement against Jews.

The traditional parties' case for isolating the AfD today is based on one issue, the same issue that has enabled the AfD to sprint ahead of the traditional parties in national polls: immigration. As Caldwell explains, "The Sachsen-Anhalt AfD was classified as 'proven right-wing extremist' for its ethnic conception of German citizenship."

The AfD is not the only European party characterized as "far right" for its advocacy of limiting immigration by establishment organs like the London-based Economist and most dominant news organizations on the continent.

The establishment has looked benignly on immigration, including from Muslim countries in the Middle East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, and South Asia, as an economic boost for a Europe whose low native birth rates have reduced economic growth down toward zero and jeopardized the financing of its generous old-age pension and medical care systems.

Voters have not been persuaded.

In Germany, the AfD, though its strength is concentrated in the former East Germany, leads in national polls over the Christian Democrats, who have led the government most of the time since 1949, and the Social Democrats, whose roots go back to the 1880s.

In France, the National Front's Marine Le Pen, though sidelined by an establishment-rigged court ruling for months, leads by wide margins in polls for the first round and runoff in the 2027 presidential election. One issue that may help her: aid for air conditioning, scorned during this hot summer by intellectuals as an American abomination.

In Britain, the newly installed Prime Minister Andy Burnham, boosted by his popularity in Manchester, has seen his party leap ahead of Nigel Farage's Reform Party. But his party, despite its name and history, is still losing many working-class areas and is reliant on support from high-income, high-education, high-immigration metro London.

As for Italy, the fourth most populous European democracy, its Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, initially labeled a far-right fringe candidate, celebrated early this month her achievement of the longest-serving head of government in the republic.

What do Le Pen, Farage, and Meloni have in common? Their objections to immigration, and especially Muslim immigration. For which they have some reasonable basis.

In Germany, former Christian Democrat Chancellor Angela Merkel unilaterally opened the doors to more than a million migrants, most of them young men, in 2015, and, to protests, insisted "Wir schaffen das" - "we can handle this." But as Germany's foreign-born population has increased from 8.1 million in 2014 to 13.4 million in 2022, violent crime has soared (despite news media attempts to hide it), and immigrants have dragged down high school student test scores.

Nor has the influx of Muslim immigrants spurred economic growth, as Germany's economy suffers from self-imposed high energy costs, and Chinese competitors threaten its auto industry. The establishment's economic arguments for high immigration are in shambles.

What I find most puzzling here is the evident feeling of the European establishment - and one might add that of their American counterparts as well - that opposition to mass immigration from culturally dissimilar sources is somehow morally equivalent to the Holocaust. Why is excluding arguably unassimilable people from your country morally equivalent to murdering millions and millions of people?

Yes, both policies may be sparked by a dislike of characteristics that those excluded and those slaughtered are presumed to share - call it bigotry if you want, and make your valid point that not all members of any group share the characteristics of the group's average. But when those characteristics tend to undermine the generally and increasingly improving ways in which the peoples of Europe and America have lived together over the lifetime of those of us born during World War II, is there not some reason people might want to exercise caution in changing the cultural mix?

Especially in Europe, where populations haven't had the success in assimilating newcomers that Americans have had. And perhaps in America as well, where we have been in danger of forgetting or denigrating our forebears' accomplishments along those lines.

Good counsel, in my view, comes from the liberal San Francisco-based economist Noah Smith. "Liberalism," he writes in his Substack, "needs a new philosophy of immigration."

AfD voters, he argues, with American Trump voters clearly in mind, are not just protesting COVID-19 restrictions or responding to "economic despair," as some of his liberal confreres have argued. It's "anger over immigration."

But liberals need to recognize certain principles, Smith argues. That "migration is not a human right." That "immigration law is legitimate." That "immigration to America must be for the benefit of Americans."

The European establishment lost sight of these principles when it cheered Merkel's admission of more than 1 million, including tens of thousands of young men who consider it morally permissible to rape women not clad in hijabs. The American establishment lost sight of these principles when the Biden administration's open-borders policy allowed the nation's foreign-born population to increase (as the Census Bureau has reported) by 8.3 million in four years, compared to 6.3 million in former President Barack Obama's eight years and 1.6 million in President Donald Trump's first four.

That leaves an uncomfortably large number of people illegally here. I've often said, while advocating legalization of many, though not all, illegal immigrants, that it's a bad thing for a country and for the individuals involved to have a large number of people living here illegally. I continue to think that's a valid argument today.

And perhaps that view is having some effect. In the first 20 months of the second Trump administration, the Census Bureau reports, the U.S.'s foreign-born population has been reduced by 2.8 million. Immigration and Customs Enforcement doesn't account for half that; obviously, some illegal immigrants are choosing to leave before they're forced to.

Plus, as Smith informs his fellow liberals, Germany is making it harder to get citizenship, France and Italy are tightening border controls, the European Union is toughening asylum rules, Canada is cutting back immigration, and Sweden is paying money to migrants who leave. It no longer makes sense for Germany to cordon off the AfD, as if it were bent on sending migrants to the gas chambers. And if anti-immigration parties have unsavory members, well, that's a problem with other (all?) political parties as well.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 07:00

The weekend is here! Pour yourself a mug of Danish Blend coffee, grab a seat outside, and get ready for our longer-form weekend reads:

• VC isn’t VC anymore — understanding the rise of Cancer Capital: There’s a huge disconnect between what most people think of VC, where an investor has a big fund and cuts checks to help a founder build a company, and the current reality, where a handful of billionaire extremists use the cover of “VC” to advance an outrageous agenda where they’re accountable to no one. (Anil Dash)

• Trump’s Gift to the Money Launderers: Treasury isn’t merely shutting down an anti-corruption database. It’s deleting the data so future investigators can’t use it.  Catherine Rampell on the destroyed institutional capacity that let biological, social, and financial parasites flourish — a golden age for white-collar crime. (The Bulwark)

• The Crypto Scam Victims Fighting the U.S. to Get Their Money Back: Even when stolen money is found, some victims have found that getting it back can be another ordeal entirely. The government seized $225 million in Operation Big Tuna; hundreds of victims have filed claims, and an online gaming company says the wallets are its. (Wall Street Journal)

• How Big Pork takes money from small farmers — then uses it to lobby against them: Inside the pork industry’s $66 million piggy bank. The long saga of redirected pork-industry dollars shows how the interests of industrialized farming can find ways to overwhelm the interests and values of smaller-scale producers — and operate with relatively little government scrutiny. It also raises meaningful questions about whether the USDA is protecting the interests of American food consumers and farmers across the country, or just guarding the specific agenda of the largest players in the ag industry. (Vox)

• LG TVs caught spying even when offline or on standby: Gamers Nexus gives you another reason to never connect your smart TV to the internet. Dominic Preston on the Gamers Nexus report — the sets scan Wi-Fi for nearby devices and log data about owners’ homes nearly constantly. (The Verge)

• A War of Assassinations: The U.S. and Iran are engaged in a conflict that is massive in scale but personal in nature. Threats of assassination have, from the start, been dark and disruptive subplots of the U.S.-Iran war. Both sides have made the tactic central to their national strategies, though the executions have been rather one-sided, as President Trump and his Israeli allies have overseen the widespread killing of Iran’s senior leadership. The impact on the American government has nonetheless been profound. “We are aware of ongoing threats from the Iranian regime and its proxies and take them extremely seriously.” Michael Scherer on the tactic both sides have made central to the U.S.-Iran war — with the executions decidedly one-sided, and the impact on the American government profound. (The Atlantic)

• How Ron DeSantis politicized Florida’s higher education by placing his loyalists at the top: Term-limited, hard-right governor instituted an ideological infiltration of universities by placing allies in powerful posts. Richard Luscombe on the hand-picked appointees who will outlast the governor’s eight-year “anti-woke” assault on the state’s universities. (The Guardian)

• ​Texas’ first study of maternal deaths since banning abortion won’t be ready by Sept 1 Deadline — it will be published after the midterms: “DSHS told us in December that this report would be published by Sept. 1. They laid out a work plan that had case review ending in May and recommendations being completed in June. So what changed? What work remains? And why should Texans have to wait until after they elect a governor to see findings about preventable maternal deaths?” ​Benjamin Wermund on health officials punting the fullest accounting of pregnancy-related deaths since the abortion ban took effect until after November. (Houston Chronicle)

• The hidden dangers of Musk’s votesafe.org The slick voter registration website, currently being promoted to millions of people, is a digital surveillance machine. Judd Legum on the slick voter registration site being promoted to millions — a digital surveillance machine. (Popular Information)

• The Muted Response to Trump 9/11 Fantasy Is a Media Failure: Lisa Needham on the president’s increasingly bizarre Ground Zero claims — and the coverage that shrugged. It’s not “disputed.” He’s delusional. (Public Notice)

Video of the day: Has Taking the Perfect Photo Ruined Tourism in “The Spectacle”?

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business next week with Seth Bernstein, CEO of AllianceBernstein and Head of Asset Management of Equitable Holdings, the 69% owner AB. The firm manages $905.5B. Previously, he spent 32 years at JPMorgan Chase, where he eventually became the Global Head of Managed Solutions & Strategy at JPAM, responsible for all discretionary assets for Private Banking clients, and Global Head of Fixed Income & Currency. He eventually became CFO of JPM’s Investment Management & Private Banking division.

 

President Trump has added more to the national debt than to economic output in his first 17 months in office

Source: @SteveRattner

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

How Romania Came To Host A Post-9/11 CIA Black Site & Got US Cash Bonanza

Via Middle East Eye

Ammar al-Baluchi remembers the cold most of all. Held nearly naked in a cell lit around the clock by fluorescent bulbs, he referred to his detention "as if I was living in a refrigerator".

The nephew of self-declared 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Baluchi was one of six to a dozen men believed to be held and tortured in a secret CIA prison in Bucharest between 2003 and 2005. The treatment of detainees at the facility, formally known as "Detention Site Black", is described in detail in Guantanamo court filings. 

via AFP: The Romanian agency Orniss, pictured here on 8 December 2011, sits on a leafy street in northern Bucharest close to a set of train tracks. The agency has denied hosting a CIA prison.

Solitary confinement under lights that never switched off, sleep deprivation that at times meant being forced to stand shackled for days, repeated dousing with icy water, and forced shaving and physical handling that interrogators euphemistically logged as "attention grasps" and "facial holds" were common practice.

A photo released by Baluchi's lawyers to the press in 2024 shows him stripped naked and photographed. It is believed to be the first published image - of tens of thousands - of a "war on terror" detainee in a CIA black site.

"We know they were tortured horrifically," Ben Keith, a British barrister representing Baluchi outside the US, told Middle East Eye. "It's not always possible to say which bit of torture took place because they were tortured for days and weeks, but you don’t detain somebody in a black site with the purpose of just talking to them."

A quarter-century after the 9/11 attacks, which triggered the so-called "war on terror" and devastating US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that directly killed at least 940,000 people, a US military judge has finally set a trial date for Baluchi: 5 June 2028.

Lieutenant Colonel Michael Schrama ruled this month that the case against Mohammed, Baluchi, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will begin on that date.

Schrama is the fifth military judge to preside over a case that has been trapped for more than a decade in disputes over evidence, national security secrecy and, above all, whether confessions obtained under torture before the men ever reached Guantanamo can be used at trial.

That question runs directly through a basement in Bucharest, where the accused are believed to have been detained and tortured.

In April 2025, a Guantanamo military judge ruled that statements Baluchi gave the FBI in 2007 were involuntary and inadmissible, tainted by what the court called torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on him in CIA custody, including in Romania.

The judge found that Guantanamo's "modestly changed confinement circumstances" had not been enough to remove the “lingering taint” of what happened before he arrived there.

A gesture of courtesy

The Romanian site was part of a network of secret prisons the CIA ran across three continents in the years after 9/11 - in Thailand, Poland, Lithuania and Romania - as part of a rendition, detention and interrogation program that was formally shut down in 2009.

Romania's site opened in the autumn of 2003, according to court documents and NGO reports reviewed by MEE. According to a 2019 report by the Rendition Project, the CIA struck its agreement with Romanian authorities to host a black site in mid-October 2002.

By January 2003, the CIA's Bucharest station was already discussing how to show Romania that "we deeply appreciate the cooperation and support". 

That appreciation had a price: $8m, followed by "millions more", according to the same Rendition Project report. By autumn, the first batch of five prisoners had arrived.

The late Romanian president Ion Iliescu confirmed the outlines of the arrangement in a 2015 interview with Der Spiegel, describing a request that came "around the turn of the year 2002, 2003" from "our US allies" who asked Romania "for a site".

He said he approved it in principle as "a gesture of courtesy ahead of our accession to Nato", and that he deliberately did not ask for details. "We did not interfere with the activities of the USA on this site," he said. "This request seemed like a minor issue to me as the head of state."

The details, Iliescu said, were handled by Ioan Talpes, his national security adviser then. Talpes could not be reached for comment but gave a candid account to Der Spiegel in a 2014 interview, saying he discussed "a more intense cooperation" with the CIA from 2003 and understood that it involved detaining people at "one or two locations in Romania".

He admitted to personally approving the leasing of a government building to the American intelligence agency. Talpes put it more bluntly in Romanian media, saying his country "did not have the interest to know what the Americans were doing" at the site it provided, to prove to Washington that Romania could be trusted.

Crofton Black, a former investigator with the Rendition Project who spent close to a decade tracing the CIA’s rendition network through flight logs and declassified documents, told MEE that he thinks Romania "made the decision [to host the black site] because it was in their interest, and thought the US would cover for them".

'The highest state authorities were aware'

Swiss Senator Dick Marty, whose 2007 report to the Council of Europe was one of the earliest and most detailed independent reconstructions of the CIA's black-site network, concluded that while "very few people" in the countries involved likely knew the centers existed, "the highest state authorities were aware of the CIA’s illegal activities on their territories".

His report named Romania and Poland specifically as having hosted secret CIA detention facilities. The Council of Europe's list of Romanians who knew, according to Marty and later research by the Rendition Project, extends beyond Iliescu and Talpeş to a few other officials, including Traian Basescu, who succeeded Iliescu as president in 2004. 

MEE reached out to Basescu for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. The 2019 report adds a detail Marty did not fully spell out. 

After September 2004, Romanian officials were formally briefed by the US ambassador and the CIA's Bucharest station chief on the program, in a presentation that "clearly described" the use of torture.

"It's definitively the case - the allegations of torture, the money, the people who were held there - it's definitively the case that that’s Romania in the court files," said Black, who co-authored the Rendition Project report.

Unlike the black sites in Lithuania and Poland, which are believed to have been in more remote locations, Romania's site is believed to have been located in central Bucharest.

An AP and ARD Panorama investigation in 2011 narrowed down the location of the site in Bucharest to the government building of the country's National Registry Office for Classified Information, also known as Orniss, on a quiet, leafy street in northern Bucharest close to a set of train tracks.

Orniss "categorically denied" speculation that there had been a CIA prison on the premises, telling MEE that it rejected any association between the institution and "the so-called CIA detention centers".

While the site's location is disputed, concurring testimonies in court records reveal details of the conditions inside it. The site consisted of six prefabricated cells painted white and tiled with impact-resistant glass, while the cells themselves were mounted on springs, engineered to keep detainees slightly off balance and disoriented. 

The site is sometimes referred to as "Bright Light" because of the fluorescent, continuous light inside.

Another detainee held there was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, accused of being the mastermind of the October 12, 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. He is believed to have been held in Romania between April 2004 and November 2005.

His case reached the European Court of Human Rights, which later found in a landmark 2018 ruling that his detention in Romania involved an "extremely harsh" regime, including blindfolding, total isolation, exposure to loud noise and unbroken light, and leg shackles during every movement. The Court and related records also document sleep deprivation, painful stress positions, slapping and, at one point, forced rectal feeding.

A 2014 US Senate Intelligence Committee report found that the CIA's "enhanced interrogation" program in the black sites did not produce unique, life-saving intelligence that could not have been obtained by other means.

A US Senate report on CIA torture revealed that the CIA held at least 119 detainees in its secret detention program, with at least 39 of them subjected to the agency's "enhanced interrogation techniques," often without proper authorization.

The CIA also misled oversight bodies and the public about the program’s brutality, while there was little accountability for the abuses.

Continued denial

For two decades, Romania's official position has been one of denial. The country's foreign intelligence service replied to an MEE inquiry that "the matters had already been thoroughly examined by the competent judicial authorities, both nationally and within international bodies" and that it could not comment further.

Despite that, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2018 that Romania had violated Nashiri's rights, including by allowing his torture, both through what happened to him and through the state’s failure to properly investigate it.

The Court found that a secret detention center had operated in Romania and that Romanian authorities had "cooperated in the preparation and execution" of the CIA's rendition and detention programme, fully aware of its nature and purpose even if they were not privy to everything that happened inside.

It took me many years and a lengthy #FOIA lawsuit against the CIA to uncover exactly what happened at the Salt Pit, one of the CIA's black site prisons in Afghanistan where detainees were tortured. CIA just destroyed part of it, according to NYT

Gruesomehttps://t.co/kGlFei1sfe https://t.co/tmWHrQ3hBE

— Jason Leopold (@JasonLeopold) September 2, 2021

Romania responded by closing the domestic criminal investigation. A case opened in 2012 after a complaint from Nashiri's lawyers, represented by the Open Society Justice Initiative, had by 2014 been formally classified as an inquiry into unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture.

Lawyers who represented Nashiri in Strasbourg and Romania did not agree to interview requests before publication. But according to a Romanian parliamentary question answered by the foreign ministry in 2018, the Open Society complaint originally filed sought far more than charges of torture and unlawful detention. It asked prosecutors to investigate complicity in murder, unlawful arrest, abuse of office, and failure to report a crime, among other allegations.

Prosecutors narrowed that down in 2014 to two counts: unlawful deprivation of liberty and torture. The investigation went nowhere. In any case, by 2016, the statute of limitations on the alleged crimes had already expired because no investigative steps had been taken that would have suspended the clock, and no suspect had ever been formally identified.

Romania's public prosecutor's office told MEE in an official response that the file was closed in March 2021, with the perpetrator classified as "unknown" despite what it described as the use of international cooperation mechanisms to gather evidence.

The same year, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers expressed "profound regret" that Romania could not show it had used all possible means to establish the facts, three years after the Strasbourg ruling required it to.

Keith, Baluchi's counsel, said senior Romanian officials acted with direct intent in 2003 and 2004 to allow the CIA to detain, torture and later transfer Baluchi to Lithuania. "We know from the ruling in al-Nashiri the Romanians knew about it; they might have not known exactly what was happening, but they facilitated the CIA to create a black site to torture these men," Keith said.

"Our contention is that Romania not only facilitated the CIA black site but knew they were being used to torture individuals."

MEE reached out to Romania's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Justice for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Romania's domestic intelligence service, SRI, also declined to comment, telling MEE that it lacked legal standing to address claims "circulating in the public space".

With a trial date now set for June 2028, the confessions extracted under torture at CIA "black sites" – including the facility in Bucharest – have become central to the 9/11 case. So, too, has the role of the governments that allowed the CIA to operate these secret detention and interrogation sites on their territory.

Romania, for its part, is still refusing to talk about what happened in its basement, despite the body of evidence that has emerged. "There's been years of compelling evidence that Romania hosted a black sit,  and the more it has grown, the government continued to deny it was involved," said Black. "It's ridiculous, it's nonsense."

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/12/2026 - 23:20

Florida's Attorney General Sues Netflix For Allegedly Harvesting, Selling Children's Data

Florida's attorney general sued Netflix on Sept. 9 claiming the streaming giant collected data on its youngest viewers and added addictive features to the platform after promising not to.

An aerial view of Netflix studios, with the Hollywood sign in the distance in Los Angeles on Dec. 5, 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Attorney General James Uthmeier is seeking billions in damages from the company and asked the judge to order Netflix to stop its alleged deceptive practices.

"Parents were told kids' profiles were a child's own space - safe, separate, great for kids," Uthmeier said in a news conference Wednesday.

"Families believed them. But behind the brand, Netflix built something different."

In the lawsuit, Jill McLaughlin reporets for The Epoch Times,that Uthmeier claims Netflix offered an ad-free service that promised not to collect or sell data but began to track children and their profiles when it launched an advertising business in 2022.

The streaming service offers an under-12 profile option for children which promotes a non-advertising space, according to the state.

Uthmeier alleges Netflix violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and the state's Digital Bill of Rights, including by selling sensitive personal data collected from known children without prior consent.

He seeks a permanent injunction, an order requiring Netflix to purge any deceptively collected data from Floridians, and an end to addictive designs that keep children watching on the platform, in addition to billions of dollars in civil and other monetary relief, he said.

"Parents, not streaming corporations, need to direct the upbringing of children," Uthmeier said.

In the complaint, Uthmeier stated Netflix's executive officer Reed Hastings told investors during a Jan. 22, 2020, earnings call the company's model was not based on using customer data.

"We don't collect anything, we're really focused on just making our members happy and we're not tied up on all that controversy around advertising," Hastings said.

Hastings also said Netflix wasn't interested in tracking customers' locations or other things they were doing. "We want to be the safer spy where you can explore, you can get stimulated, have fun, enjoy, relax, and have none of the controversy around exploiting users with advertising," Hastings said during the call.

The Netflix executive compared the company to Google, Facebook, and Amazon's advertising models that used consumer data collection and targeting information, saying Netflix was "not controversial that way."

James Uthmeier speaks at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Uthmeier's complaint alleges Hastings' comments represented to customers that buying Netflix subscriptions bought an escape from tech surveillance, but in fact generated years of "lucrative behavioral data" for the company.

Hastings stepped down as Netflix's chairman of the board of directors in June.

Uthmeier claims that, behind the scenes, the company accumulated years of consumer data and surveillance and used it when Netflix deployed its advertising business in November 2022.

The lawsuit alleges the streamer uses dark patterns, or subtle designs, to manipulate users to take actions the company wants them to take. The autoplay feature is one of these designs, the complaint alleges.

An attorney listed for Netflix didn't respond to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

Florida is the second state to sue the streaming giant. Texas filed a lawsuit in May alleging similar violations of the law arising from the collection of users' data without their knowledge or consent.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/12/2026 - 22:45

Making The World Great One Nation At A Time

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

What we call "globalism" has been on the march for eighty years. A system that embraces centralized markets, bureaucratic regulation, international institutions, and so-called non-governmental organizations (predominantly funded by governments), globalism places significant power in the hands of a small collection of wealthy and powerful stakeholders from the planet's top investment houses, corporations, law firms, universities, central banks, and government bodies.

Globalism speaks in the language of "democracy" while ignoring - or even criminalizing - the will of the people. Across the West, citizens have opposed open border policies that have flooded their nations with unassimilable, foreign immigrants. Globalists have categorized this dissent as "hate speech," censoring - and even prosecuting - citizens for their social media posts and public speech. Globalists insist that there must be limits on free speech. They seek to punish "thought crimes." They label opposing points of view "disinformation" or "misinformation." In practice, globalists protect governments and institutions from public criticism.

Globalism also speaks in the language of "free markets" while heavily regulating industrial production, encumbering the use of private property, and manipulating currency valuation, stock markets, and trade. By effectively "printing money" and intervening in markets, central banks steal from citizens who save their cash earnings, inflate the prices of essential household goods, and protect privileged companies or industries deemed "too big to fail." By ginning up "global warming" fears among the public, lawmakers, bankers, and bureaucrats have justified the imposition of "carbon controls" that regulate energy use, economic production, and human activity. By expanding public welfare programs while weakening protections for property ownership, globalists tax citizens at increasingly higher rates, redistribute earned income and savings, confiscate real property, and even permit squatters (often foreign migrants) to occupy private residences.

Globalism falsely clothes itself in principle and tradition. Its proponents speak of "Western values," while encouraging non-Westerners to migrate to and radically change the culture and demographics of Western nations. Its propagandists claim to represent "the people," while doing the bidding of multinational corporations and investment banks. Its defenders pretend to respect public opinion, while mandating slavish devotion to "expertise." Globalism seeks to end the nation state while demanding that citizens sacrifice themselves for government bureaucracies. It wages war against Christians who refuse to worship government institutions as the highest authorities on "truth." Globalists divide societies into "victims" and "oppressors," so that citizens remain too busy fighting each other to notice the surveillance prison being built around them. Globalists criticize opponents by saying things such as, "That's not who we are," while taking a sledgehammer and blowtorch to Western identities.

In defiance of globalism's steady advance since WWII, a revolution has been brewing. Although its messengers have appeared all over the world - including Pat Buchanan in the United States, Shinzo Abe and Sanae Takaichi in Japan, Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, Javier Milei in Argentina, Alice Weidel in Germany, and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom - President Donald J. Trump is the unofficial leader of the rebellion. What these men and women have in common is a strong sense of duty to their respective nations, a firm belief that culture matters, a preference for common sense, and a commitment to their countrymen over the international institutions, multinational corporations, and globalist NGOs (such as the World Economic Forum) that seek to eliminate national borders and condemn citizens to lives as disposable serfs.

President Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement has spawned similar campaigns around the world. Whether in El Salvador or Nigeria, Spain or Australia, Canada or India, there are locals who have appropriated that slogan as part of an effort to make their own nations great. While globalism diminishes the importance of culture and celebrates amorphous "multiculturalism" as an inscrutable ideal, nation-builders around the world know better: Culture is the lifeblood of every society. It is the glue that binds a people together, fosters cooperation, and turns dreams of the future into reality. Just as members of a family help each other to succeed, members of a shared culture ensure their nation's success.

People who climb mountains do not plant flags from the United Nations, European Union, the World Economic Forum, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; they fly their national flags at the top. Because no matter how much globalists lecture us about the evils of nationalism and the moral equivalence of all cultures, human beings know better. Our families, traditions, religious convictions, and historical memories matter. And when we ascend the icy peaks that few people have reached, we mark the moment, not as an achievement for "multiculturalism," but rather as a testament to the inherent greatness of the places we call home.

For decades, globalism has been promoted as a "free market" ideal that would generate economic growth and foster international peace. But how has it operated in practice? Powerful corporations and lobbying groups have worked with governments to construct elaborate trade agreements that benefit the bottom line of political and financial elites. Rarely are the interests of the common man considered, except in the context of labor unions, standards bodies, or trade groups that purport to represent the average worker. Instead, complex legal documents such as the North American Free Trade Agreement have assisted in the creation of large industry monopolies while squeezing out small businesses. After the creation of NAFTA and similar "free trade deals," American corporations and investment firms became multinational conglomerates, while Main Street mom-and-pop shops disappeared.

Globalism's preferred winners became entities "too big to fail." Why were they "too big to fail"? Because their trillion-dollar operations stretched like a circulatory system around the globe. Their drive for "efficiencies of scale" pushed them into every local bank, industry, and consumer market that could be secured as a beachhead for future profit. But in the endless expansion of it all - the mergers, acquisitions, and amalgamated monopolies - globalism's circulatory system resembled that of a morbidly obese man only one meal away from a massive heart attack. A system so interconnected that it cannot survive the loss of any part makes the whole thing vulnerable to a few drops of poison.

Globalism's rise has been debilitating for national self-sufficiency. In their unending quest for returns on investment, the globalists have built a world in which slave labor is used in communist China, India, and most of the African continent (while corporate news media ignore the story). Natural resources are extracted from third-world countries where environmental protection laws do not exist (while corporate news media ignore the story). Companies exploit both illegal immigration flows and legal work visas to drive down wages and drive up demand for (and therefore the prices of) food, fuel, rents, household necessities, and homes (while corporate news media ignore the story).

In treating individual nations as stolen cars being stripped and sold for parts, globalists have taken what is most valuable from each country while depriving those countries of the resources to build resilient economies of their own. From the slave mines of Africa to the sweatshops of China, globalism profits from blood. From the American Rust Belt to Germany's decommissioned nuclear plants and the U.K.'s abandoned oil and gas fields, globalism sacrifices the wealth of nations, so that multinational investment banks can suck just a little more profit from the husks of countries with one foot already in the grave.

Why is it that patriotic love for one's nation is making a comeback? Because globalism's hatred for nations has left a trail of social conflict, government dependence, drug and alcohol addiction, deteriorating public health, environmental degradation, and cultural decline in every land it drains of life. What President Trump and his fellow rebels understand is this: Nations and their people matter. You cannot make the world great, while letting great nations die.

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/12/2026 - 22:10

US Limits Its Air Defense Coverage For Tankers Sailing Through Hormuz: Report

Via The Cradle

The US military has reduced the daily window in which it offers air defense to commercial ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the Financial Times (FT) reports on Saturday.

Since May, Washington has sought to break Iran's control of Hormuz by providing air defense for vessels sailing through the strategic strait along a southern route hugging the coast of Oman.

Image source: US Air Force

Iran imposed a blockade on the strait shortly after the US and Israel launched an unprovoked war on the Islamic Republic on February 28.

However, the US began limiting the time slots in which vessels can receive protection from US aircraft as of the start of this month, FT reported.

The move comes in response to stepped-up Iranian attacks on ships transiting Hormuz, particularly at night. Ships are reportedly advised but not required to sail during the air defense time slots.

To receive protection, shipowners must apply to a US naval coordination center known as the Naval Cooperation and Guidance for Shipping (NCAGS).

Upon approval, the vessels received coordinates to follow during a broad time window. However, that window was "reduced to two specific time slots daily around the start of September," FT wrote, citing emails NCAGS sent to maritime advisors.

Vessels are now being told to begin their journey at specified times, such as 9:00 am, to receive air defense.

"We are now providing recommended transit times that vary by day. Your vessel is not required to go during these times, but it is encouraged to receive the best support," one NCAGS email said.

"Transiting during a period of darkness has not proven to be the most secure time of day," stated another email, highlighting the increased threat of Iranian attacks at night.

Iranian forces have attacked dozens of vessels attempting to pass through the strait since the beginning of the war, greatly limiting the oil exports of Washington's Gulf allies.

The US responded by imposing a naval blockade on Iranian ports in a bid to block Tehran's own oil exports. Before the war, at least 20 percent of world oil exports passed through Hormuz.

Not only security but also cost considerations may have influenced the US decision to reduce the protected transit window.

Joshua Tallis, a researcher at the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA), stated that it costs the US Navy $25,000 to $75,000 an hour to operate its advanced aircraft.

Both Iran and the US stepped up their attacks on commercial vessels in the region earlier this week. Iran targeted two vessels and eight oil tankers in Hormuz in response to US strikes on five Iranian tankers. The US launched the strikes following an attack by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on a US warship days earlier.

"These waters aren't safe," stated Michelle Wiese Bockmann, an analyst at maritime intelligence firm Windward. Bockmann estimated that oil exports from Gulf countries other than Iran in August stood at about two-thirds of prewar levels, largely because of exports rerouted through pipelines to bypass Hormuz.

'Reached final stage' – Iran says agreement with Oman close on 'temporary secure passage in Strait of Hormuz' pic.twitter.com/UHFoKlfW5Q

— Syed Ali Salman Bokhari (@SyedAliSalman70) September 8, 2026

Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei announced on Saturday that foreign ministers from several Gulf states will meet in Oman on Monday to exchange views on regional issues, including talks between Iran and Oman on designating safe routes for transiting the strait.

Baghaei added he hoped the meeting would improve understanding among regional countries and contribute to joint regional security.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/12/2026 - 21:00