Foreigners Responsible For 87% Of Thefts, 61% Of Sexual Violence On Paris Public Transport

Via Remix News,

Foreigners account for a massive share of thefts, sexual violence, and robberies on Paris public transport in 2025, according to new government data.

According to compilations from the SSMSI data files, foreigners accounted in 2025 for 87 percent of simple thefts on Île-de-France public transport, 60 percent of robberies, and 38 percent of physical assault.

In addition, foreigners account for 61 percent of sexual violence cases on Paris public transport and its surrounding regions.

National figures for foreigners committing crimes on public transport are lower but still high, approximately 76 percent of simple-theft suspects are foreigners and 71 percent of all theft suspects are foreigners.

Some groups are highly overrepresented among foreigners.

Maghrebi nationals, for instance, account for about 40 percent of theft suspects in transport nationwide, while making up roughly 2 percent of the national population, according to data analyst Marc Vanguard.

? Des chiffres CHOC sur l'insécurité viennent de sortir.

? Dans les transports en commun, les étrangers représentent 87% des mis en cause pour vols simples en Île-de-France, et 76% sur la France entière.

Tous les chiffres dans ce fil ??? pic.twitter.com/WK38I3FlKL

— Marc Vanguard (@marc_vanguard) September 10, 2026

INSEE's latest estimate puts foreigners at 9.1 percent of France's population in 2025, or around 6.3 million people. Their share is higher in Île-de-France, especially in the multicultural Seine-Saint-Denis department, but the crime for foreigners is still disproportionately high. In total, police and gendarmerie recorded 104,880 victims of theft, violence, or payment fraud in public transport nationwide in 2025, down 2 percent from 2024 and 22 percent from 2016 - the lowest level in a decade, including the pandemic years.

???? A Brazilian tourist was subjected to a vicious sexual assault on a French train on Wednesday morning, and only escaped being raped thanks to the intervention of a brave woman who filmed the assailant to scare him off.

Jhordana, 26, had been visiting her brother in Paris.... pic.twitter.com/pxOTu4fZXf

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) October 19, 2025

Theft without violence still accounts for 77 percent of those victims. Thefts and payment frauds fell but recorded physical and sexual violence rose slightly, jumping 3 percent. Drug-use and trafficking suspects in transport rose another 5 percent after the sharp Olympic-year jump in 2024.

It should be noted that among the "French" perpetrators, their potential migration background is not recorded. There are approximately 10 million people in France with a foreign background, including second-generation citizens with a migration background. As a result, a French citizen who is an ethnic Algerian, for instance, would be recorded as a French perpetrator in all crime statistics. France does not keep data on the race of crime suspects, as required by national law.

More broadly speaking, there are estimates that foreigners and French citizens with a migration background account for two out of three crimes in France.

??? This public awareness campaign in France shows a White man as the harasser on a bus.

French interior ministry stats from recent years have shown that 69% of violent crimes, including sexual assaults and harassment, on public transport in the greater Paris region were... pic.twitter.com/H3fRwEWtK2

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) July 3, 2025

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 02:00

"Human Extinction By 2030"... Remember That Major AI Psy-Op We Talked About?

Authored by Kit Knightly via OffGuardian,

I've been documenting the increasingly hysterical coverage of 'rogue AI' for the last six weeks, predicting a major psy-op or false flag.

Well, kids it looks like the psy-op part is here. So far no false flag...but with the greatest level of hysteria since the early days of Covid circulating, maybe they won't need to DO anything.

Maybe insane claims about a phantom threat will be enough.

Oh yes, did you know Artificial Intelligence has a "10% chance of wiping out humanity before the end of the decade"?

That's the headline on every single mainstream paper, the trending topic on every social media platform, the talking point on every news channel.

Yes, from the producers of long-running hit show "CLIMATE CHANGE WILL KILL US ALL!" and the international sensation "COVID WILL KILL US ALL!" comes the latest experience in fear everyone is talking about.

And this latest wave is already being used to push new "regulation", which should alarm anyone.

It all started with a young man, apparently named Jacob Coxon, who is allegedly a former AI researcher for OpenAI and later Anthropic.

Yesterday he announced his resignation from the latter, citing ethical concerns about the danger of "unregulated" artificial intelligence.

And, as is usually the case when an obscure person resigns from his job for supposed ethical concerns, his resignation was the subject of an exclusive article in the Wall Street Journal,

Oh and a simultaneously published thread on Twitter/X - from what is allegedly Coxon's own account that had - so far as can be seen - never been used before.

AMAZINGLY, within hours Coxon's alarming claims had gone "viral".

Now some old cynics out there will be thinking at this stage "hmmm correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't this look suspiciously like a narrative roll-out"?

But I'm sure the terminally gullible will hasten to reassure you that this is the way real life definitely works.

It's just a coincidence that everyone across the entirety of the political punditry spectrum is engaged in amplifying one single message.

In another of those startling synchronicities which we don't need to think about too much, at exactly the same time that Coxon was hitting the mainstream headlines, Joe Rogan - king of the mainstream alternative media - had another AI researcher on his show, spouting his own dire warnings.

AI experts have been crawling out of the woodwork, all keen to endorse Coxon's position - or even call it an underestimate.

You must have seen Geoffrey "the godfather of AI" Hinton on the BBC, telling Victoria Derbyshire he agreed with Coxon's risk assessment:

"You just said that 10% doesn't seem an unreasonable estimate that AI could kill all humans" "Yes" "Wow... oh my God."@vicderbyshire speaks to Nobel Prize Winner and so-called 'Godfather of AI' Geoffrey Hinton about predictions by an Anthropic researcher that there's a more... pic.twitter.com/sGYQI57REF

— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) September 9, 2026

A 10% chance of killing every single person on Earth in the next three and a half years.

No, really.

They're less clear how exactly that's going to happen - but that's not the important part. The important part is we need to DO something.

Everyone from Matt Walsh to Glenn Greenwald agrees on that.

And what do we need to DO?

Why, REGULATE of course. That's what Coxon said in one of his MANY media interviews in the last twenty-four hours (and as someone who has been aware of Coxon's existence since some time yesterday I can tell you I trust him absolutely):

The guy who helped train the models left Anthropic and said AI is more dangerous than a nuclear weapon. Jacob Coxon spent 3 years at OpenAI and Anthropic. He says the labs think this could kill everyone by the end of the decade and they are still racing each other. His answer...

— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) September 10, 2026

He floats an AI non-proliferation treaty "like we have for nuclear weapons" - as if it's a wildly coincidental brand new idea, and not a paraphrase of the same talking point dozens of people - including Bill Gates - have been suggesting for months.

But what would a global AI treaty actually look like? And what would it achieve? And who will be in control of implementing it?

Well, for a potential taste here's what US Congressman Bill Foster tweeted:

A "hardened" internet? Is that what we can expect?

No more "untraceable access" to AI facilities? Restrictions on "anonymous payments"? What exactly does that mean?

Perhaps "proof of humanity" or "proof of personhood" should be required to use the internet? Or maybe the internet should have "borders"?

Then there's the kill switches of course, both the US and UK are close to implementing those:

We need to pass the AI Kill Switch Act NOW. https://t.co/bZYEb8GWIR

— Rep. Ted Lieu (@RepTedLieu) September 10, 2026

Last week, coincidentally, a group of Lords from the UK's upper house was calling for "kill switches", not just for AI programs, but for data centres in general [emphasis added]:

A group of peers is calling for the British government to be able to deactivate powerful AI systems and switch off the country's data centres in the event of the tech posing a threat to national security

And who will have control of these kill switches and other control mechanisms? You? Or the usual suspects?

Of course if you've already allowed yourself to be manipulated into believing data centers are the Spawn of Satan, you'll probably think a kill switch is a great idea - and happily overlook that it's just putting yet more control into the hands of institutions that already brought you the 'covid' scam and 9/11.

If any such people are reading this - does it occur to you yet that THIS was always the end point of those panic memes you hoovered up so uncritically?

Be careful what you wish for.

In this looming world of "regulated" AI, governments could be empowered to shut down access to sites, networks or even the internet as a whole in the event of alleged "rogue AIs" becoming a "threat to national security".

And if YOU or your output or you interactions get labelled as potential AI, or you have your access restricted purely based on your location or IP address?

Well, good luck telling anyone as you scream inside your soundproof bubble.

This can go further - and we'd be fools to just assume it won't.

In the name of preventing the spread of "rogue AI" (or "rouge AI" according to half the hysterics on social media), the internet can have information bulkheads which can be used to quarantine sections, nations, networks or individual sites "infected" with digital these digital "invasive species".

You may have to prove your humanity with face scans or similar, and there may be strict limitations on what regions and/or databases you can reach, how much of your money you can spend without additional checks, etc.

Even the restricted internet of today might look like freedom compared to the' post-AI-Regulation' revised world wide web.

And today's security state might be something to look back on with nostalgia when the 'post-AI-Regulation' revised worldwide surveillance and supply line controls kick in.

But don't think about any of that - that nice guy Jacob you never heard of a week ago is warning you.

Listen to him on the mainstream media platform they gave him.

Demand your government saves you.

I'm sure this time it really will.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/13/2026 - 23:30

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

"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

Today July 19 2013 Here is the news conference by Governor Rick Snyder and emergency manager Kevyn Orr explaining why they claimed bankruptcy.

http://www.whec.com/news/stories/S310...
Rochester, N.Y. -- She says she had no warning that someone was going to search her car after she left to catch her flight. So the woman contacted News10NBC.

We found out it happened to her because she valet parked her car. Those are the only cars that get inspected.

So if security feels it is necessary to search some cars in the name of safety, why not search all of them?

Laurie Iacuzza walked to her waiting car at the Greater Rochester International Airport after returning from a trip and that's when she found it -- a notice saying her car was inspected after she left for her flight. She said, “I was furious. They never mentioned it to me when I booked the valet or when I picked up the car or when I dropped it off.”

Henry Kissinger actually publicly stated that those who oppose the New World Order are "terrorists".

Henry Kissinger in a speech given in Istanbul, Turkey on May 31, 2007, while the Bilderberg conference was simultaneously underway, just a few miles down the road.

"In the Middle East, we live in a different world. The nations do not represent historic entities in the same sense that European nations did. Turkey of course does, and Iran in a considerable extent does. But in the region in between, the borders were drawn by the victors of World War I on the basis largely of what would facilitate their influence. So therefore, the identities of these countries, and of their borders, can be challenged more easily."

"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system, and they're trying to regroup it to a radical Islamic fundamentalists kind."

Detroit has become the largest city in Unites States history to file for bankruptcy after decades of decline and mismanagement rendered the city insolvent. Michigan's governor, Rick Snyder, said on Thursday that there was no other option to tackle the city's $18.5bn of debts. Al Jazeera's Caroline Malone reports.

Detroit has become the largest city in Unites States history to file for bankruptcy after decades of decline and mismanagement rendered the city insolvent.William Black, a professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, talks to Al Jazeera about Detroit filing bankruptcy.

7/18/13 - Anti-government activist Adam Kokesh, who is currently jailed on drug charges and is facing a firearms charge in D.C., says he will someday run for President on a platform of abolishing the federal government. Since July 9th, 31-year old Adam Kokesh has been incarcerated in a cell in the Fairfax County jail which measures seven by seven-and-a-half feet.

On Independence Day, Kokesh had a colleague record a video of the pro-gun activist loading a shotgun on D.C.'s Freedom Plaza. The District has strict gun control laws that generally forbid the carrying of firearms. U.S. Park Police and D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department opened an investigation.

Several days later, U.S. Park Police used a flash grenade when their SWAT team served a search warrant at Kokesh's home in Herndon, Va. Kokesh was arrested when officers said they found hallucinogenic mushrooms at the house.

In an exclusive jailhouse interview, Adam Kokesh denies any connection to the drugs. Here is part of the transcript of that interview with Kokesh: "If they found a stash of magic mushrooms in my house, they were not mine. ANY IDEA WHOSE THEY WERE, OR WHY THEY WERE IN YOUR HOUSE? I'm pretty confident that, whether or not they found anything, the full paper bags that [U.S. Park Police] brought into my house would insure that they had charges to bring against me. ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT THOSE DRUGS WERE PLANTED? Yes."

Kokesh, who has been arrested several times before by U.S. Park Police, says that agency has a "vendetta" against him, but he believes the evidence in the drug case is weak.

Federal officers have now filed a weapons charge against Kokesh for wielding the shotgun in D.C. on the Fourth of July. Here's more of the interview: "WAS IT A REAL SHOTGUN AND WERE THEY REAL SHELLS GOING INTO IT? Yes. ON THE VIDEO YOU POSTED? Yes. YOU DID KNOW THAT WAS ILLEGAL IN D.C.? It's called civil disobedience."

Adam Kokesh believes the Second Amendment to the Constitution will provide him a successful defense against the D.C. gun charge.

The former U.S. Marine who served in Iraq plans to someday bring his anti-government views before voters. "ARE YOU RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT? Yes sir, in 2020 on the platform of: orderly dissolution of the United States government. WHY IS THAT A GOOD IDEA? Why is having a federal government a good idea at this point?"

Adam Kokesh believes the U.S. military is more harmful than helpful to American security, and the government -- as a whole -- has burdened its citizenry with debt.

Adam Kokesh is 70% disabled from his term of military service. He says he lives only on that money.

His supporters, through their website, adamvstheman.com, are asking supporters to send money for bail and send money so a private attorney can be hired. Kokesh is currently being represented by a public defender.

Kokesh remains in custody in the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center, and, if he is freed on bond, he faces extradition to D.C. to face the gun charge.

July 18, 2013 - Bill O'Reilly Interviews Donald Trump on Economy, China, and Obamacare



Trump would be a hell of a lot better president then Obama, at least he is willing to do what needs to be done instead of creating some BS healthcare system .He's a businessman, he knows how to make deals, he will get tough on China (even if he has ties made in China in which I don't think he knew or maybe he thought we're a screwed country so why not just sell them to stupid people who will only buy them anyway), I don't believe what they say about his net worth (in which they say isn't worth much). Trump has a big fat heart inside I believe it.

Here it comes Detroit about to be largest Bankrupt City .The city of Detroit files for Chapter 9 federal bankruptcy protection, making the automobile capital and onetime music powerhouse the country's largest-ever municipal bankruptcy case. WSJ Global Autos Editor Joe White reports.


This news really ruined Obama's golf game today ... ya America is crumbling apart , but we have 15,000 Russian soldiers to help fix it I hear!!