Central Asia Resists US Pressure To Choose Sides In AI Race

Authored by Eurasianet via OilPrice,

• Kazakhstan is continuing to expand AI cooperation with China even after joining the US-led Pax Silica initiative.
• Uzbekistan says it wants access to both cutting-edge American technology and lower-cost Chinese AI models rather than choosing between them.
• Their positions illustrate the difficulty Washington faces in persuading Central Asian governments to take sides in the intensifying US-China technology rivalry.

Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are tossing figurative darts at a US trial balloon connected to the intensifying race between the United States and China for leadership in AI development.

Reuters reported on August 14 that the US State Department had drafted a note stating that any nation interested in widening access to advanced American know-how and technology in the AI sector under a program known as Pax Silica must refrain from participating in a rival Chinese initiative known as the World Artificial Intelligence Cooperation Organization (WAICO).

Kazakhstan is a member of both Pax Silica and WAICO, while Uzbekistan is a signatory to the Chinese initiative while expressing keen interest in expanding cooperation with the United States in AI development. More broadly, the United States has taken steps over the past 18 months to expand economic ties with all five Central Asian states.

Actions and statements by Kazakh and Uzbek officials since news of the draft State Department note began circulating indicate that both states are disinclined to adhere to what amounts to an American demand.

Kazakh officials have not publicly commented on the issue of the country's participation in both Pax Silica and WAICO, but recent developments suggest Astana is intent on maintaining close contacts with China in the AI sphere.

On August 18, experts from the countries' respective academies of sciences agreed to jointly develop a science-focused AI platform to analyze "scientific literature and large data sets, identifying patterns, formulating and testing hypotheses, modeling complex processes, planning experiments, and predicting results," according to a Kazakh government statement. The Kazakhstan and China are also working on an AI initiative called DeepBas, which aims to develop "specialized models" enabling the more efficient management of water resources.

Exchange programs are likewise proceeding. Kazakh engineers from the national space company recently participated in a training program in China on using AI to analyze satellite data to improve natural disaster early warning capabilities. In addition, at a recent symposium in Almaty, Chinese and Kazakh researchers discussed AI applications in medicine and agriculture, as well as joint research and training for young AI specialists.

Uzbekistan has perhaps been more direct in addressing the brewing AI issue. Speaking at a technology forum in Tashkent on August 24, Bobur Khodjaev, an aide to President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, issued what could be considered a veiled plea for the US to abandon an "us-or-them" stance on AI development. He also stated that Uzbek officials would continue to opt for the best available AI solutions, regardless of national origin. He acknowledged that American tech may be superior but also stressed that China offered more affordable options.

"As a developing country, we want to have access to all available technologies," Gazeta.uz quoted Khodjaev as saying. "Specifically referring to the US and China, obviously American tech companies offer cutting-edge AI chips and AI models. China, in turn, offers open-source models that are significantly cheaper than American ones. And we would like to have access to both."

"We are open to collaboration with all partners and interested parties and strive to implement artificial intelligence technologies not only in finance but in all areas of our economy," Khodjaev added.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 19:50

Federal Court Rules Sexual AI Images Of Children Are Legal To Possess

Perhaps sometimes it's best for judges to ignore technical loopholes and rigid legal precedent for the sake of doing the right thing?  Maybe, in extreme cases where absolute evil is involved, our system could dismiss the "rights of artists" and enforce restrictions based on the potential long term damage to society as a whole? 

Yes, the constitutional conundrums are plenty, but can't we also simply use common sense? Because if we can't, these kinds of artistic "expressions" are going to inspire independent vigilantism and it will be the fault of the courts when this inevitably happens. 

A federal appeals court says a Supreme Court precedent set in 2002 forces it to protect the in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material.  The court warned that rapidly advancing technology has complicated legal lines drawn nearly 25 years ago. 

The Seventh Circuit said it was bound by the Supreme Court decision that rejected restrictions on sexually explicit depictions of fictional children when no actual child was involved in their creation. But two judges warned that modern AI can now generate images virtually indistinguishable from material depicting the abuse of real children. 

In other words, artistic depictions of child abuse are legal to possess in private because no real children were harmed in their creation.  The use of AI exploits this loophole for the creation of hyper-realistic images very similar to real pornographic content.   

"Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then," Judge John Lee wrote. "Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves." 

If we give these judges the benefit of the doubt and accept their explanation that the Supreme Court ruling prevents them from taking action, we are still left with the moral question.  There are constitutional purists out there who might argue that "artwork" is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.  There are others (progressives) who will argue that a private individual owning such images hurts no one and they should be left alone to bask in their AI generated pedophilia.

This brings us to the deeper question:  Should known pedophiles be allowed to roam free within society because they haven't abused a child "yet"?  Or, should these people be locked up the moment they are identified for the sake of protecting communities from "potential" harm? 

It's generally not constitutionally legal to arrest someone for something they might do, but obviously, the legalized possession of AI child abuse images cannot be allowed to stand.  Even if the materials could be labeled "art" that does not harm real children, they act as a useful identifier for some of the worst monsters within any given community.  That is to say, these images should be used as an excuse to round up such people. 

It doesn't matter if they have not yet harmed a child; given the opportunity, they likely will.  The Supreme Court should change their precedent for this reason alone. 

The Seventh Circuit affirmed a lower court’s dismissal of one of four charges against Steven Anderegg, who investigators said had hundreds of AI-generated sexually explicit images depicting children on devices seized from his Wisconsin home. 

Anderegg was charged with producing and distributing the AI-generated material, transferring it to a minor under 16, and possessing it. A federal district court dismissed only the possession charge on First Amendment grounds, leaving the other three charges intact. 

For now, the distribution of these images is still illegal.  Generating the images, while still considered illegal, is difficult to prove, which is why the possession issue is so important.  Any AI images that use pictures of real children as a reference are also illegal.   AI is testing legal lines that many people thought impossible only a decade ago and limitations need to be addressed before extensive damage is done.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 19:15

What Do "Capitalism" And "Socialism" Really Mean?

Authored by Vincent Cook via Mises Institute,

The old debate between socialism and capitalism is back. It wasn't that long ago when socialist economics had been repudiated even by former Soviet insiders, businesses like Wendy's and Miller ran clever television advertisements poking fun at the once-mighty but by then grossly dysfunctional Soviet Union, and the remaining leftist political parties in Western countries pivoted to focusing on promoting welfare statism while admitting that government controls over the means of production is a losing proposition. Back in the day, even people lacking the keen theoretical insights of a Ludwig von Mises could plainly see that actual attempts to realize socialism, however well-intentioned they were originally, only delivered totalitarian tyranny and mass impoverishment.

Since then, schools haven't been so keen on teaching younger generations that a system based on individual liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights is what delivers the goods and what enables competent adults to function as morally- and intellectually-autonomous individuals. Neither do they teach that politically-generated handouts, subsidies, privileges, and immunities, nor governmental fiat money creation or unrealistic governmental promises of future economic security are at the root of many of the worsening problems afflicting the productive classes in our society today. Instead, young people have been indoctrinated with a belief that "capitalist" private profit-seeking and the cultural and religious traditions spontaneously propagated in an individualistic culture are to blame for all of society's ills and injustices. They are taught that only by instituting "socialism" to overthrow capitalism and forcibly re-engineer America's culture to "woke" specifications can such problems be solved.

Many contemporary defenders of socialism deny that they have anything like the Soviet Union in mind when they use the "socialist" label (though there is a Marxist Unity Group within the Democratic Socialists of America that is overtly pro-Bolshevik), while they are quick to pin the "capitalist" label on an admittedly dysfunctional status quo that strongly deviates from individualist libertarian principles in numerous respects. Such rhetoric is driven in no small measure by clashing definitions of what "socialism" and "capitalism" are supposed to mean, since of course neither side wants to take blame for either the failed Soviet example or for the failing status quo. So how are we to understand this definitional conflict, and how can we resolve it? In what sense is the extreme Soviet version of socialism relevant, if at all?

Back when the socialist movement got started, the original premise was that private ownership of the means of production was intrinsically evil because only the owners of the means of production (the wicked "capitalist" class), not society at large, allegedly benefited from the existence of private ownership. Private property was smeared as being profoundly unjust. Earning a positive return on investments was erroneously portrayed as being a parasitic extraction of value from producers, not as enhancing productivity in any way.

"Socialism" in this early context broadly referred to any system for organizing production that prevents such private earnings on investments, instead reallocating them to the benefit of "society" according to whatever distributive outcome was considered just. As long as most of the public remains blissfully ignorant about how both private thrift and profit-seeking/loss-avoidance and private investment of the resulting savings actually increases the physical quantity of outputs produced, it is possible to conceive of all sorts of crazy schemes to replace "capitalist" profits with some sort of "socialist" alternative. Socialism, in other words, was originally defined in a negative way as the antithesis of private ownership of production, which rendered it hopelessly vague.

Likewise, narrowly focusing on private ownership of the means of production without regards to other important requirements for a productive profit-and-loss driven economic system-like ownership being based on peaceful acquisition, ownership rights being defined in terms of the owner's exclusive control over the use and disposition of his body and the owned things, and everybody being at liberty to do anything that doesn't violate other people's ownership rights)-leads to an overly-broad definition of "capitalism" as well. It conflates the genuinely productive laissez-faire variant of private ownership with the genuinely exploitative interventionist variants where the state rewards specially-favored private interests with subsidies, with privileges that enhance earnings by restricting the liberty of others, and with immunities that enhance earnings with exemptions from liabilities for violations of ownership rights.

Such fuzzy ambiguities give socialists an escape clause when confronted with evidence of how badly real-world socialist experiments work-"But that wasn't real socialism!" It also permits a conflation of interventionism with laissez-faire that incoherently indicts private ownership with evidence of exploitative outcomes arising from what are actually serious deviations from libertarian/classical liberal principles. With such a foggy conceptualization of the nature of capitalism and socialism, the underlying issue of the absolute economic necessity of private thrift coupled to profit-and-loss-motivated entrepreneurial investing in the context of competitively-generated market prices for capital goods and for factor inputs is never confronted.

The way to dispel this fog is to realize that an eclectic mix of government controls and of private profit-seeking (as is frequently encountered in concrete historical situations) is neither fully capitalist nor fully socialist. Appeals to the evidence of concrete historical examples are never fully persuasive because one can always invoke alternative causal factors to rationalize why things worked out as well or as badly as they did in a particular situation instead of treating the historical example as a decisive test of a given system. As Mises explained in his methodological work Theory and History, causal explanations of historical events always have to be preceded by a correct understanding of economic theory; data from complex, uncontrolled social situations does not permit rigorous logical inductions of causal generalizations like the controlled laboratory experiments of the natural sciences do.

This implies that the real battleground for a debate over different economic systems are rival theoretical understandings of how purposeful human action works, not the data of how different historical examples performed. Mises brings theory to the forefront by reserving the label "capitalism" to a system based on laissez-faire principles of liberty constrained only by peacefully-acquired private ownership rights, the label "socialism" for coercively-centralized control over the means of production (whether formal ownership itself is centralized or not, which gives rise to two distinct varieties of socialism), and the label "interventionism" for systems with selective government interference with certain aspects of production while leaving all other aspects of production to be self-directed, incentivized by private profit-seeking and loss-avoidance.

The crucial point to note here is that Mises avoids the customary ambiguities by narrowing the meaning of each concept to a particular idealized type of economic system where the properties of each system have been specified sufficiently so that a theoretical analysis of the consequences of each system can be deduced rigorously. Also, it is helpful other conceptual possibilities as needed to provide an exhaustive catalog of possible systems. Unlike the vague terminology that originally informed the capitalist/socialist debate, Mises's definitions are fit for the task of debating the merits of different systems.

While having a more highly-specified, robust set of concepts at one's disposal doesn't necessarily conclusively settle debates over how to interpret a particular concrete historical instance, such concepts do enable deductions concerning what consequences would follow from various changes to the current system, all other things being equal. It also obliges champions of more limited interventions, entitlement benefits, etc. to drop the pretense that because their vision of "socialism" doesn't involve full Soviet-style central planning, their "socialism" somehow doesn't suffer from yet other problems that arise in connection with interventionism, welfarism, etc. All things being equal, the consequences of each isolated type of intervention can be qualitatively predicted using Misesian economic theory too.

What really ought to be the focus of debate today is America's deindustrialization and the associated decline of America's productive classes while the ruling class and its assorted minions and clients have been flourishing. Simply blaming all billionaires (and the newly-minted trillionaire) and traditional American culture for all of America's ills (as progressives like to do) or blaming foreigners and "woke" culture (as MAGA conservatives like to do) does not add up to a coherent logical explanation of how economic exploitation actually works in our society or why it suddenly started becoming a problem a little over half a century ago.

Only a logic of purposeful action, which is self-evidently and universally true for all human beings under all social circumstances, can help us clearly understand how America went wrong and what we must do to reindustrialize America while ending the systemic exploitation of the productive by the unproductive. It is Mises's definition of capitalism, not the interventionist status quo often confused with capitalism, that conceptualizes what is lacking in America today and how America needs to be reformed to make possible liberty and prosperity for all.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 18:40

Pentagon Grabs 35% Equity Stake In Venezuelan Oil As Trump Vows To "Fill Up" The SPR

Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez on Saturday evening unveiled further details of the grand US oil deal that was announced by President Trump on Friday, detailing that her country will receive about $19 per barrel of oil produced under the long-term energy deal.

Rodriguez, who was Maduro's #2 as VP before the former president's overthrow by invading US forces less than a year ago, hailed the "historic" agreement as an avenue for boosting crude output while bringing economic benefits. "The agreement is based on a very simple premise," she said. "Each party contributes what it does best. Venezuela contributes oil, its industry and the experience of its workers accumulated over more than 100 years. The United States contributes the capital and technology needed to recover and develop those assets."

Trump on Sunday: a "Gift from Venezuela to the People of the United States."

Rodríguez additionally said that in return, "Venezuela receives production, jobs, investment in infrastructure, increased revenue for the government and productive linkages for domestic industry." On top of this she assessed the deal would eventually grant Venezuela some $209 billion in taxes.

Her comments attempted to preempt discontent over the US deal from sectors of her own citizenry. Ironically, she's obviously playing the role of a pliant Washington figurehead, and there's local concern that the deal simply siphons off national resources and puts it into Uncle Sam's pocket, which is a long-running experience of a number of Latin American populations especially related to CIA action there in the context of the 20th century Cold War.

President Rodriguez stated that she wants to "make something absolutely clear"... she insisted that "Venezuela retains ownership and sovereignty over its resources, while utilizing capital, technology and operational capacity to leverage the recovery of a strategic industry that has been severely hit by sanctions."

In parallel to some of the details that Rodriguez filled in, The Wall Street Journal over the weekend has its own lengthy report on some of the deal's ins and outs. Below are a few highlights of that WSJ report...

*  *  *

The Pentagon will take a 35% passive stake in a private company holding Venezuelan oil rights:

Although it was negotiated by senior officials in both governments, the structure would make the U.S. an investor in a private company rather than a direct counterparty to the Venezuelan government. 

The U.S. plans to take a 35% passive stake in Betancourt’s North American Blue Energy Partners and would secure preferential rights to purchase 20% of its production at cost, according to people involved in negotiating the agreement. 

Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt is being offered development of some seventeen oil fields:

It would give Washington a direct financial stake in a private company that would be granted centurylong rights to some of the world’s largest proven oil reserves—and tie the U.S. more closely to the unelected government that is granting those rights.

The private company, led by controversial Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt, would have the opportunity to develop 17 oil fields said to contain 65 billion barrels of oil, or one-fifth of the country’s reserves. The Pentagon, in a striking expansion of its remit, would help finance the oil venture and reap the rewards of its future output.

Pentagon's strategic capital office was brought in late in the process to create a financing mechanism:

The Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital plans to structure the investment through penny warrants that would yield the U.S. an equity ownership in the business without a significant capital investment, the people said. The Pentagon office has limited statutory authority to strike deals designed to support U.S. national-security interests, typically through loans and guarantees. 

Betancourt has served as a broker in Venezuela’s energy deals and has close ties to Rodríguez. He faced criminal investigations of alleged money laundering in Spain and Switzerland, though no formal charges have emerged. His NABEP has become the second-largest private oil producer in Venezuela, after Chevron, over the past two years.

Future governments in Caracas could potentially challenge the agreement (though Washington is unlikely to ever cease asserting its direct influence):

For American oil companies pursuing potential investments in Venezuela, the idea of competing with a U.S.-backed private company with a stake in huge swaths of the country’s oil fields is daunting, people close to the companies said. U.S. officials said the state-backed company would be the second-largest corporate holder of proven reserves after Saudi Aramco.

The deal is also raising alarms within the industry about whether a new Venezuelan government could mount a successful legal challenge, and whether it might undercut new entrants’ confidence in making investments, the people said.

...The substance of the agreement appears to be in direct conflict with Venezuela’s 1999 constitution, which states that the country’s oil reserves belong to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and can’t be sold. Critics say Venezuela’s current government, populated by unelected officials kept in power by the Trump administration, has no legal authority to sell the country’s oil rights.

Via AP: The Amuay oil refinery - Venezuela's largest petroleum processing facility.

There remain an additional array of problems facing translating the deal into additional supply at a moment America's Strategic Petroleum Reserve hits decades lows.

Though sitting atop the world's biggest proven oil reserves, Venezuela has long been known for its derelict and largely defunct infrastructure for getting crude out of the ground and refining. There's also the question of security, which has been a source of discussion between the US admin and American oil companies being courted. The oil majors must be convinced that they can operate in enough safety to be successful, not just for the coming months, but for years down the line. And yet, they will now be forced to essentially 'compete' with the US government, ironically enough.

There are also lingering transparency and accountability questions concerning the Venezuelan oil exports that Washington already took over since Maduro's ouster.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 18:05

Opportunity Lost? Gained? Squandered?

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Another week with so many competing narratives driving markets. The information flow was coming so fast and furious that it is difficult to believe that Economic D-Day kicked off the week (it already seems longer than that).

Today, we will take a quick romp through how things seem to be playing out.

Opportunities Lost?

As anyone reading recent T-Reports knows, I was hopeful Warsh would take the stage on Friday and try to “shake things up.” Try to drive home some new (and in my view, much needed) paradigms. We got to discuss this ahead of Warsh’s speech on Friday morning on Bloomberg TV.

Warsh does deserve some credit for using the word “hike” three times at the start of his speech (but all in reference to the activity involving walking outdoors, rather than anything to do with rates). Not sure it was wise, as it likely set the algos off on the 2-year note, but I do applaud the effort to mislead the algos and speed readers.

In the end, bonds bear flattened. Stocks fell a little bit, but the bear flattening was the big takeaway from what I found was quite a boring speech, that really didn’t provide any new information.

The 30-year bond rallied initially and tried to hold on to those gains, but finished the day with higher yields. Part of that afternoon selling on longer-dated Treasuries could well be hedging (yield locks) for some IG new issues on Monday. As we wrote about in Yields Behaving Normally, both Bessent and Warsh need to pay far more attention to the massive supply of long-duration bonds (primarily from corporates in the “compute” space) and bonds in general (including increased global sovereign/quasi-sovereigns).

Had he gone down the path I would have liked to see, Friday might have even been messier than it was, but at least we’d have something interesting to discuss. Instead, I expect by the middle of next week, we will be back to lamenting the lack of specificity on the reaction function.

As the chair of the Fed, he has plenty of opportunities to speak, and people will listen, but the set-up for something more exciting than we got was almost perfect on Friday. An Opportunity Lost, in my view, but one that will be re-addressed as nothing is going to stop the data from coming in and the Fed from having to make decisions.

Opportunities Gained?

Every major news source is reporting increased oil flows out of the Middle East. Between alternative routes and increased passage through the Strait, pressure on the crude market is being relieved.

The blockade remains incredibly successful, preventing trade with Iran via the Strait. 

CENTCOM’s Commander, Admiral Brad Cooper, announced the Strait has been cleared of mines. Another very positive development on reducing the leverage Iran has.

The U.S. is also increasing staffing at embassies in the Gulf States, which is another step towards our view that neither the U.S. nor the Gulf Region has any interest in re-escalating “kinetic” warfare (the “cool” way to say shooting and blowing things up).

If we see renewed escalation, it seems likely to be initiated by Iran, and they don’t seem to have the will, or ability to do much at the moment (they have allegedly disabled some ships trying to transit, but no large-scale attacks on infrastructure in the region – which is the main fear). 

While we haven’t seen diesel or gasoline drop materially, the more oil that can make its way to refineries, the better.

Bessent’s announcement of Economic Outcast on Monday was a bit disappointing. Well, disappointing from launching concrete, obvious effects, that would really pressure the regime to give up (really needs to be tough on China to do that). But that also soothed markets which have less to worry about if we aren’t ramping up the rhetoric with China. A bit of a catch-22.

Basically, Bessent saying that we’ve put everyone on warning/high alert (and they have some time to change their behavior before we come down with the hammer) seems logical. It will take longer that way, but if the threat of the “hammer” works, then it will have accomplished the mission.

On the other hand, what happened to “Sanctioning a Major Financial Institution” on Friday? Maybe it is taking longer to get the legal side of things right, before implementing the sanctions? Maybe the “guilty party” has come to the table to negotiate a deal favorable to the U.S.? Those would be good outcomes and are plausible. But why make such a “direct statement” and not live up to it? On that topic, why didn’t this press conference happen the prior week, which seemed to be the initial target for launching the Economic Armageddon?

As a whole, the direction of travel on the issue of oil and energy products in the Middle East is heading in the right direction (less clear on nuclear deals and change of regime behavior).

Stories are hitting the tape this weekend about a major deal between the U.S. and Venezuela. We continue to see success in working with Venezuela since Maduro has been captured. Having said that, it is difficult to tell from the details provided so far, what the real impact is with this potential “deal.” If it is as good as the Truth Social posts say it is, that could be very good (primarily in the medium to longer term). But as we discussed last week, in the section Done Means Done, we have seen social media pronouncements, or soundbites (even soundbites from the Oval Office), that don’t always materialize the way they were initially touted.

Would be a great win, and I do think Venezuela can be a hub for processing, refining, and smelting materials that the U.S. needs.

Opportunities Squandered?

Since the trade negotiations fell apart (wow, that was only last Friday, that seems even longer ago), there has been a lot of discussion about who caused the deal to break down. Some argue that Carney views it as politically in his interests to not do a deal, even if he could have had a “good” deal. Others discuss last-minute demands on the U.S. side, which seems to fit in with the “art of the deal.” Where this all winds up, who knows.

We are going to lump this into the Opportunities Squandered section, though maybe not in the way you think this is going.

Let’s start with Canada. Let’s start a decade or so ago.

On Friday on Bloomberg TV (during the second segment), I say something that will probably get me in trouble, but once in a while you need to take that risk to get a soundbite across.

I argue that Canada cannot have BOTH a Green Economy and a Real Economy right now. I am not saying that over time you cannot achieve both a robust economy and one that is sustainable for your own nation and the world. I am saying that even if the ultimate end goal skews heavily towards sustainable and green, the priorities in the near term may have to be adjusted. You might never get to the “green” economy if you don’t survive long enough. We argued that the “energy companies of the future are the energy companies of today” during peak “Hopium.” By Hopium, I meant that the vision drove everything and ignored certain realities, that were really needed to turn that vision into reality. I’m not sure I’ve dug myself out of any hole I’ve dug myself into with this attempt at explaining my view, so I’ll just move on.

LNG exports. The U.S. has built a robust business around LNG. Not only is it bringing in revenue for America, and creating jobs, in America and abroad, but you could argue it is helping importers diversify away from LNG imports from less trustworthy, or reliable counterparties.

While there are a myriad of reasons why the U.S. can do better than Canada, and has done better, there is truth to the concept that Canada regulated themselves out of business. Or, more precisely, in this case, regulated themselves out of creating a new business.

This to me, is just another example of why ProSec needs to go global (and is going global).

• If you have the resources, why not extract them?
• Once you’ve extracted the resources, why not refine them?

As we’ve seen with the Strait, the bottlenecks occur primarily around the refined versions of oil. Yes, oil in itself is troublesome, but it is the refined products that are even more important.

Whether Canada listens to this wake-up call (and there are signs that they have been doing it — heck, we even have a tiny blip in the export line from Canada) is yet to be determined. As we’ve highlighted recently, Australia is planning on their first refinery in 60 years!

ProSec is going global. It is in every nation’s interest to ensure that their supply chains for things that are imperative to their existence are as stable, safe, reliable, and resilient as possible.

Having said that, we will discuss two other subjects in this section, even though I’m not sure they are squandered.

• Trade with Canada.
  • At least some of what the U.S. needs for reshoring and, possibly more importantly, the compute build, does or could come from Canada. Aluminum. Data centers need it. Canada has it. There is very little evidence of domestic production that can come on-line quickly, hence, the cost of compute build will go higher. If I’m Canada, I’m trying to harness all the things at my disposal that go into compute and will try to maximize that revenue source (whether in the U.S. or elsewhere). Not sure Canada will do that, but I’m not sure why the U.S. is doing anything making it more difficult or expensive for the compute build, when they are facing enough cost, energy, and NIMBY hurdles.
  • Farming. Potash. The U.S. imports it at scale. It is an important cost to farmers. Canada has it. The U.S. may have it, but it isn’t readily available. I’ve lost track of what the U.S. is doing on some ag things. Importing ground beef from somewhere (presumably Argentina). Changing how the processing is done. Food costs are a key issue for many voters, so not sure what the nation gets more benefit from – tariffs or coordinated effort?
• The China Summit.
  • While it is simplistic, my “working view” is that:
    • China is aiming to catch up on compute, faster than the U.S. can catch up on processing, refining, and smelting.
      • We are purposely avoiding the term – rare earths and critical minerals, because that tends to make people think about the rare earths and critical minerals themselves, rather than what is more important, which is processing, refining, and smelting. Not just rare earths and critical minerals, but even some basic commodities and metals.
  • If we think back to the “cards” on the table when the trade teams were negotiating in Geneva, to now, who has improved their hand?
    • I am not sure. Our compute is growing, but China seems to keep popping up as well. The admin is doing some great work on the processing, refining, and smelting side, but we started so far behind China that we need to continue to operate at lightning speed!

It will be interesting to see if I’m correct and ProSec truly moves global, or if countries will remain content to let others do the heavy lifting, even if it risks their economic future.

Bottom Line

I continue to like owning “compute” bonds on a yield basis (no rate hedge).

The Treasury bear steepener likely has more room to run, but we did have downward revisions to the prior year’s worth of jobs data. Not as draconian as last year, but another hint that the job market might be something the Fed needs to keep an eye on (especially as I don’t see how hiking helps war-related inflation or compute-build inflation). Will want to be adding to the front end. I remain indifferent on the long end, but suspect the global supply of debt will outweigh what Bessent has announced so far, and ultimately, the Fed will need to implement some form of Operation Twist to really shift the pricing of the long end.

If oil keeps coming down, it will help rates and equities. I remain concerned how much (in either direction) equities are being driven by the semis where the number of leveraged ETFs astounds me (creating mechanical buying and selling, amplifying every move).

I do think even with oil prices coming down, energy companies, globally, should remain a key overweight in portfolios (XLE is up 42% YTD) and global demands to harness and deliver energy are only increasing!

I don’t think I “squandered” the summer, but have to admit it went by a lot faster with a lot more work and angst than I would have hoped for! Enjoy this last week of summer and hope you have great plans for Labor Day weekend! (which is a holiday both in Canada and the U.S. though it is spelt differently).

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 17:30

State Department Revokes Visa Of Iraqi National On FBI Terror Watchlist

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

The State Department has revoked the visa of an Iraqi national who was placed on the FBI's Terror Watchlist, ending her ability to enter the United States years after she received a high-profile award from the Biden administration.

The U.S. Department of State in Washington on March 28, 2025.Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Taif Sami Mohammed Al Shakarchi is no longer present in the United States, according to a statement released Friday by Assistant Secretary Dylan Johnson.

The revocation followed her placement on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Terror Watchlist. No further details on the underlying intelligence were provided in the department's announcement.

"Under President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, suspected terrorists will never be allowed to remain in the United States," the statement read.

Al Shakarchi was given the International Woman of Courage Award in 2022 by then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and then-First Lady Jill Biden. The department said she had been recognized for her purported role in fighting corruption and her advocacy for "gender equity."

The award recognized "women from around the globe who have demonstrated exceptional courage, strength, and leadership in advocating for peace, justice, human rights, gender equity and equality, and the empowerment of women and girls, in all their diversity."

Al Shakarchi, also referred to in State Department materials as Taif Sami Mohammed, had served as Iraq's deputy finance minister. She was described at the time of the 2022 award as a longtime official in the Ministry of Finance who started out as a budget analyst in 1985 and rose to director general of the Budget Department. Officials then called her a front-line leader against corrupt practices and noted she was known as the "Iron Woman." She was listed as a political independent.

The 2022 ceremony, held virtually, was hosted by Blinken with Jill Biden delivering remarks. Twelve women from various countries received the honor that year.

The Trump administration has made clear it prioritizes removing individuals it views as security risks. In recent months, the State Department has revoked hundreds of visas in targeted efforts, including nearly 900 people targeted by a birth tourism task force launched in early August. Broader continuous-vetting operations have led to more than 175,000 visa revocations for a range of violations, crimes, and national security concerns.

The International Women of Courage Award itself continues under the Trump administration. First lady Melania Trump and Rubio presented the 2025 honors in April, recognizing women from countries including Burkina Faso, Israel, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, Romania, South Sudan, Sri Lanka, and Yemen. The department has noted that more than 200 women from over 90 countries have received the award since it began in 2007.

Al Shakarchi's case stands apart due to the later watchlist designation. The State Department says its visa action is a straightforward application of its policy against allowing suspected terrorists to stay.

The department's release did not specify where she is now or provide additional biographical updates beyond the watchlist status and her departure from the United States.

Visa decisions rest with the executive branch, with courts offering limited recourse to many such revocations, a principle reinforced in prior Supreme Court rulings on related immigration matters.

The move arrives amid wider efforts by the administration to tighten scrutiny of foreign nationals already inside the country or seeking entry. Officials tie those steps to national security priorities under the Trump administration.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:55

The Mother Of All Mean Reversions: Commodities Have Never Been This Cheap Versus Stocks

Across Wall Street, from Barclays and UBS to HSBC, JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs, a common view is taking shape: physical scarcity is emerging across multiple commodity classes, driving prices sharply higher and signaling a broader hard-asset squeeze.

Last week, UBS strategist Sagar Khandelwal issued a similar call heard across Wall Street, telling clients to “position for a commodity upcycle.”

On Saturday, Christopher LaFemina, who heads Jefferies’ global metals and mining research and is one of Wall Street’s veteran commodity experts, told clients that commodities remain historically cheap relative to US stocks.

LaFemina compared the S&P GSCI with the S&P 500, showing the ratio hovering near its lowest level in more than five decades. Similar troughs emerged during the Nifty Fifty and dot-com bubbles before commodities sharply outperformed stocks.

Previous upcycles in the ratio coincided with the 1970s oil embargo and inflation shock, the Gulf War, and the 2008 oil-price surge. Today’s depressed reading comes as retail and institutional investors remain bullish up to their eyeballs on hyperscalers and memory stocks while remaining highly concentrated in a handful of other AI names. And really, what could go wrong if the AI boom begins to deflate?

The trough in the ratio comes as traders ignore commodity markets, where the theme of scarce physical resources is rearing its ugly head:

• Got Hard Assets? UBS Says "Position For A Commodity Upcycle" As Global Scarcity Emerges
• Barclays Warns Next Commodity Shock Is Taking Shape: What You Need To Know
• "Buffers Running Down Quickly": HSBC Warns Next Global Food Shock Brewing
• The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"

Agricultural prices are soaring; copper is trading above $14,000 per ton in London; tungsten is above $3,000 per ton; uranium is back above $90 per pound; and many other critical materials (seen as the building blocks for the AI boom) are surging as demand accelerates. Electrification, AI buildout demand, rising power consumption, geopolitical fragmentation, including China’s weaponization of export supplies (tungsten and germanium), and years of underinvestment are colliding to create a perfect storm of constrained supplies across energy, metals, and other raw materials.

Agricultural commodities have just broken decisively above nearly 20 years of resistance.

And this is happening while:

▪️Diesel prices approach all-time highs
▪️Mortgage rates hover near 7%, with housing already deeply unaffordable
▪️Wealth inequality stands near historic… pic.twitter.com/rgJfZgUPBC

— Otavio (Tavi) Costa (@TaviCosta) August 29, 2026

"The 10-year rolling change in the US dollar remains one of the most important macro developments in the world today," Azuria Capital's Otavio Costa wrote on X. 

The 10-year rolling change in the US dollar remains one of the most important macro developments in the world today.

We are likely witnessing the beginning of a secular decline in the dollar — a necessary adjustment to the significant trade deficit the US economy faces today.… pic.twitter.com/uWqXcX3QUr

— Otavio (Tavi) Costa (@TaviCosta) August 30, 2026

It's time to focus on "scarcity in the physical world," according to veteran commodities strategist Jeff Currie, who also warned, "The illusion of abundance is likely behind us."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:20

Pentagon Strikes Iranian Island Target, In First US Military Action In Weeks

Update(1615ET): Things have been quiet for many days and weeks on the military front when it comes to the Iran war, but on Sunday there are some emerging reports of new but limited US strikes. According to the latest late Sunday from Axios:

Senior American official: Earlier today, American forces attacked two Iranian launchers on Larzac Island. Revolutionary Guard forces were observed preparing to launch rockets carrying sea mines toward the Strait of Hormuz.

So despite the White House signaling a move away from military action and toward the economic warfare front, it's also clear that more sporadic tit-for-tat blows could follow. But Trump has lately made clear that military options are still on the table, and strikes will be utilized as needed.

CENTCOM says that they attacked two Iranian missile launchers on Larak island. This is the first time that they have struck an Iranian target in weeks.

— barry with the NED (@bonzerbarry) August 30, 2026

*  *  *

Propaganda has always been a problem when it comes to the fog of war.  The internet and social media add a new dimension to the confusion as conflicting information is allowed to spread like wildfire using civilians and media outlets as tools for propagation.

The lack of confirmation is exploited, often by both sides, and the truth becomes lost in the mire.  That said, the facts on the ground will eventually see the light regardless of spin.  In the case of the war in Iran, the facts on the ground do not bode well for the Islamic Regime. 

Iranian leaders now openly admit that the US blockade has crippled around 35% of the nation's exports and imports while domestic prices continue to skyrocket by 60% or more.  This, however, is not the most immediate problem for the regime.  

It would appear that initial reports of gasoline shortages across Iran did not convey the true scope of the crisis.  In the past week alone more evidence from within Iran has hit social media, showing mass lines at gas stations and panic among citizens as rationing is introduced. 

Energy officials have acknowledged a gasoline deficit of roughly 15 million liters every day, warning that strategic reserves have reached “dark red” territory.

Iran has ten main operating oil refineries plus the large Persian Gulf Star condensate refinery, which is the country’s biggest gasoline producer, meaning, they do have the capability to produce their own domestic gasoline supply.  So, why the shortages? 

 

Some refined products are shipped into Iran from foreign sources and the US blockade is stifling that supply.  However, there is also the possibility that the blockade has forced Iran to shut down a number of oil wells due to lack of storage.  Depending on the type of well, a shutdown can cause extensive damage and prevent new production for years to come.  It's likely that Iran's crisis is rooted in an oil supply problem as much as a refining problem. 

The Iranians have recently called for a return to the standards set by the MOU agreement with the US, and they have also accused the US of committing "war crimes", arguing that the blockade is causing a humanitarian crisis.

The recent admissions of economic damage, the fuel shortages and the assertions of humanitarian crisis are a sharp tone shift from Iran's posture only a month ago.  Couple this with the 400% surge in ships traversing the Strait of Hormuz and it would seem that Iran is losing the war outright.  If the blockade continues for another few months the financial damage could be irreversible and repairing resource flows could take years.    

It's not enough for the regime to survive if the economy they oversee dies.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 16:15

AI's China Syndrome: Who Will Control The World's Newest Energy?

Authored by J.T. Young via Substack,

Ceding leadership in AI to China's Chinese Communist Party (CCP), what could go wrong?

Just about everything. Yet that is precisely what some here in the U.S.-and all in Beijing-want to occur.

America is currently being swept by misguided attempts to curtail AI's development and the development of the data centers on which AI's development will depend. Some of these stem from legitimate concerns (though often inaccurate) about what AI can and will do. Some stem from concerns about what data center development will mean for their communities. [The answer is jobs, investment, and growth-something that West Virginia's governor Pat Morrisey and statehouse leaders presciently see as they pitch their state for just such responsible development.]

However, some of this opposition also stems from foreign influence from those who would love nothing more than to see America not be the leader in a technology that has the potential to define this century's development and beyond.

The history of mankind's development could be shorthanded into a history of mankind's harnessing of energy. This history began with humanity's use of its own muscle power. It moved from our muscle power to harnessing (literally) the muscle power of animals. This power was supplanted by the power of the elements-wind (with sails, mills, etc.) and water (mills, dams, and more). Then there was steam. Then the internal combustion engine. Electricity. Nuclear. And yes, renewable forms as well.

We shifted back and forth between these as refinements were made to their production and application; however, they largely served first to supplement, and soon to supplant, our muscle power. Certainly, there were enhancements to our "mental energy" too, writing and the printing press, for example; however, it was not until relatively recently (in the 1940s) that the "mental energy" revolution exploded with the advent of the computer.

AI is different, and in that difference lies its potentially revolutionary aspect. AI offers the power to supplement our mental power far beyond what the computer can. Our mental power is the distinguishing feature of the human species, which underscores just what AI could do for humanity.

This brings us back to those who want to curtail America's leadership in this vast potential. Clearly, China's CCP is at the forefront of those who would like to see America not have this leadership. Even more, it is clearly at the forefront of those seeking to prevent American leadership in AI.

China's efforts to slow America's AI development are many. Undoubtedly, the CCP will find more ways, and more examples will come to light.

All this leads to the question: If America does not lead in AI, who will? China's answer is already clear. Even more important, then, is the question: What would China's leadership in AI entail? We can largely answer that question based on past and present experiences.

The virtual monopoly the West gave to China in rare earth mining, production, and manufacturing of products heavily dependent on these minerals has not served us well. It has given the CCP leverage in many instances. It has undoubtedly increased the price volatility of rare earth-dependent products, which has also encumbered the adoption of such products. It has also shifted these rare earth activities to a country with lower environmental standards (one even more pronounced in the past, when the West gave China its rare earth monopoly).

China's laxer oversight standards have had global repercussions beyond the environment. COVID's origin from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology is increasingly accepted; concerns about its safety and management standards were known years before COVID. At the very least, China's delayed revelation of important information about COVID allowed the virus to spread. The escape of an earlier SARS virus in 2004 is also widely known.

None of these argue for security when it comes to AI oversight in China. How then could China be trusted in the development of a technology that is widely predicted to potentially be the world's most powerful?

There should be even less confidence in the CCP's deployment of AI. China regularly targets its adversaries (both at home and abroad) with every tool available-and increasingly with AI-making its citizens among the most surveilled in the world. There are growing reports of China's funding of U.S. protests. China's Belt and Road Initiative uses investment to gain influence and build dependency across the globe-particularly in developing nations.

China's direct aggression has been increasingly on display for years. There are its recurrent border conflicts with India. There is the building of island bases in waters near the Philippines (and other areas in the Pacific for years) and confrontations with that government. There has been the abrogation of its deal with Hong Kong for recognized rights, and its jailing of political opponents there. There have been continual threats of aggression against Taiwan; bellicose warnings have also been issued against Japan.

The CCP's internal repression is even greater than its external actions. Its recently passed "Ethnic Unity" law builds on past charges of genocidal practices against the Uyghurs and Tibetans. Internal surveillance, already severe, has only been enhanced by the CCP's use of AI.

If the CCP uses a myriad of ways to confront foreign governments and intrusive means against its own citizens at home and abroad, there is no reasonable expectation that it would not use AI against foreign nations and their citizens too.

The CCP desires AI supremacy, just as they have been allowed to have it in rare earth minerals. They are working to secure this for the obvious reason that AI has the potential to be far more valuable than rare earth minerals.

And because the West was shortsighted enough to cede China leadership in rare earth minerals, the CCP has some reasonable expectation of success in its AI efforts. That the West is so willing to allow its own culture and values to undergo assault from within (in contrast to the CCP's enforcement of its cultural hegemony internally with its new ethnic unity law) is just another signal to Beijing that the West is unwilling to defend its interests.

How fast China is progressing in the 21st century's technology race is evidenced by its leadership in the development of humanoid robotics and other areas. So, the threat is not only real; it is already here.

To recap, China's already using AI for surveillance internally and externally. China's oversight of its science has proven inadequate in medical research, just as its oversight of the environment has been. Yet some, such as Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), would not only have us ignore these warning signs, but dramatically exacerbate their potential for danger with AI by curtailing its development and de facto ceding AI leadership to China.

The history of energy has written the history of human development. This history of energy was largely one of supplementing muscle energy. The new revolutionary energy is not physical energy but mental energy. It is AI, and it will supplement humanity's mental energy. Beyond the question of what AI can do is who will control it?

We all recognize that AI will be overseen; such oversight is a hallmark of the U.S. However, doing so to the extent that it curtails AI development and renounces leadership in a technology of unprecedented power to the world's least accountable government is extremely naive. Doing so to a government that has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, that it will use all the means at its disposal to the detriment of those it perceives to be adversaries would be the biggest mistake in history-with potentially the most powerful technology in history.

J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America's Socialist Left from RealClear Publishing. Follow him on Substack.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 15:45

'No End In Sight': Democrats Make Trump Foreign Policy A Central Issue After 6-Months Of Iran War

Via Middle East Eye

US Democrats on Friday slammed the Trump administration for dragging out the war on Iran to its six month anniversary, warning Republicans would pay the price in the upcoming midterm elections.

The joint US-Israeli attack on Iran, beginning on February 28, was initially meant to last a few weeks, by President Donald Trump's own estimates. Half a year later, the war has seen the US lose at least 18 of its troops and cost $100bn in military spending, most of which was approved by the Republican-controlled Congress late last month after Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requested additional funds north of $60bn.

AFP/Getty Images

The war has cost each American taxpayer around $600 to $1,000 in extra energy costs because of Iran's response in blocking the Strait of Hormuz, according to a Brown University study and estimates from Moody's Analytics. 

Estimates for the number of Iranian dead vary between 3,400, according to the UN’s OCHA agency, and 6,000, according to the Israeli military.

"Trump and his chief dealmaker [Vice President JD] Vance have failed to reach an agreement to end their war. Back in March, Trump and Vance said the war would be over 'soon' - but just this week, Trump said he is 'not in a hurry' to end the war," Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair Ken Martin said in a statement on Friday. The DNC oversees all party activities and vets candidates for elections.

"[They] dragged the US into a deadly and costly war they clearly cannot find a way out of - at the expense of the American people who are struggling to make ends meet. Trump and Vance explicitly promised no new foreign wars, yet six months in, there is no end in sight to the conflict that has driven up prices on everything from gas to groceries," Martin said.

"While Republicans claim they cannot bring down costs or fund affordable healthcare for everyday Americans, they continue to spend billions of dollars on a war no one wanted or asked for - and voters will remember this betrayal when they head to the polls in November.”

The Silver Bulletin, which tracks and analyses public sentiment, noted on Friday that repeat polling has shown around 37 percent of Americans support the US-Israeli war on Iran, while 55 percent oppose it. 

Half hearted opposition?

While Democrats in the House of Representatives latched onto an effort by the progressive wing of the party in late February to force a War Powers vote - which would insist on Congress having the power to declare war and not the president - it was not clear they would have actually opposed any attacks in their capacity as lawmakers.

Earlier this year, before the 28 February US-Israeli onslaught began, reports emerged that Democratic Party leadership was trying to curb more grassroots efforts to restrain Trump's war-making authority.

Establishment Democrats, many of whom failed to condemn Israel for what the United Nations and Holocaust scholars have called a genocide in Gaza, have not shied away from consistent condemnation of Iran, believing that, if not now, then at some point Tehran would have to be militarily confronted.

Iran itself had said that, while it must be ready for a war with the US - largely egged on by Israel - it would rather cut a deal that allows it the weapons it says it needs to defend itself as a sovereign state. 

A week before the US and Israel began joint air strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed House and Senate leadership on the latest Iran developments behind closed doors. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, emerged only to say to reporters: "This is serious, and the administration has to make its case to the American people."

Four days earlier, Schumer said in a statement that "confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, regional aggression, and horrific oppression of the Iranian people demands strength, resolve, regional coordination, and strategic clarity".

Where things stand

If there is a diplomatic track that Trump is still pursuing, there are no signs that it's yet at a senior enough level to bear fruit. Two attempted ceasefires have quickly collapsed. 

Qatar's prime minister arrived in Iran on Thursday in a bid to seek a joint Iran-Oman solution to reopening the Strait of Hormuz. The talks have slightly lowered the price of oil this week, but Trump's new deployment of the USS Theodore Roosevelt for a seven-month stint in the region suggests tensions are not winding down any time soon.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Monday announced a new wave of sanctions against Iran and its "enablers", towards what he described as an "asphyxiation of this regime".  He called it "Operation Economic Outcast".

Most Democrats have all along shared the same hawkish attitudes and assumptions when it comes to Iran...

Ro to Dem Iran hawks:

"The last thing we want is to goad Donald Trump into more conflict"

"Is this the time to be saying to Donald Trump, you haven't blown up enough stuff in Iran? Absolutely not!"

"Let's get a negotiated settlement... Democrats should be for ending this war" pic.twitter.com/Rxbd7e1iJ6

— Just Foreign Policy (@justfp) May 27, 2026

Using a "zero leakage approach", Bessent said the Treasury had "mapped every node, every facilitator, and every network that Iran has used to smuggle oil and evade sanctions", and that Trump had already made phone calls to counterparts around the world "with specific requests to cease their interactions with the regime". He did not specify which leaders, nor on what timeline they may act.

Then there's the critical shortfall in US munitions, given the Pentagon has moved many to the Gulf, as it strikes back at Iranian retaliation against US military bases and energy facilities in the region. A Reuters report this month said the US had exhausted its stockpile of sophisticated long-range missiles during the war on Iran, including surface-to-surface ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). 

The Associated Press also reported a "beyond critical" shortage of advanced missile interceptors, especially Patriots, which have been used to shoot down Russian ballistic missiles in the war with US-backed Ukraine. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 15:10

"Profound Game-Changer": Musk Launching New Turbine Blade Factory To Solve Shortage Threatening AI Boom

SpaceX is making an aggressive push into the power generation market, with The Information reporting that Elon Musk is preparing to address one of the most critical bottlenecks threatening America's data-center buildout: the shortage of advanced gas turbine components, particularly the blades and vanes needed to power massive data center campuses.

SpaceX is laying the groundwork for a new factory in Bastrop, Texas, that would manufacture high-temperature blades and vanes for industrial gas turbines. The move could allow Musk to circumvent the severe turbine blade shortage that has pushed availability toward 2030.

On X, Musk responded to the report, saying, "The limiting factor for nat gas turbine production is casting the blades & vanes. By doing in-house casting at SpaceX, we can accelerate nat gas turbines coming online by up to 18 months, which is a profound game-changer."

SpaceX and Tesla are each building 100GW/year of solar production capacity as fast as possible, but natural gas will still be needed to supplement and bootstrap solar for several years.

The limiting factor for nat gas turbine production is casting the blades & vanes. By doing…

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

Musk previously warned about the shortage during a recent podcast, saying, "Turbines are sold out through 2030. In order to bring enough power online, SpaceX and Tesla will probably have to make the turbine blades and vanes internally. There are only three casting companies in the world that make these, and they're massively backlogged."

ELON MUSK: “Turbines are sold out through 2030. In order to bring enough power online, SpaceX and Tesla will probably have to make the turbine blades and vanes internally. There are only three casting companies in the world that make these, and they’re massively backlogged.” pic.twitter.com/YlKHznBXhK

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) August 29, 2026

A Federal Trade Commission filing shows that Musk has acquired APR Energy, a provider of mobile gas turbine power plants used by data centers, utilities, and industrial customers.

Musk's acquisition of APR Energy also gives him access to a mobile fleet built around GE TM2500 and Mitsubishi FT8 turbines, which typically produce 20-35 MW per unit.

SpaceX is targeting roughly 10 gigawatts of AI computing capacity by the end of 2027, while Musk has said the company wants substantially more power and cooling infrastructure.

Consensus estimate is that ~15GW of AI compute produced in 2027 cannot be turned on in 2027.

This is harder than just finding power, as you also need to build out all the transformers, wiring, liquid-cooling, (massive) chillers & complex networking. https://t.co/cRXJ1Wrkri

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 29, 2026

This all signals that Musk views the turbine shortage as a direct threat to SpaceX's data center buildout timeline. Rather than wait on constrained outside suppliers, he is moving aggressively to vertically integrate another critical layer of the AI infrastructure stack across his business empire.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 14:35

Iceland Voters Reject Reopening Talks To Join European Union

Iceland voters on Saturday rejected a proposal to reopen negotiations to join the European Union, after the island nation of some 400,000 people chose to maintain independence after shelving its membership bid more than a decade ago.

Supporters of the 'No' campaign wave Icelandic flags during a rally against reopening Iceland's European Union accession negotiations in Reykjavik, Iceland, on Aug. 27, 2026, two days ahead of a national referendum. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images

Heading into the vote, the "yes" camp was ahead by just 2.6 points - however opponents defeated the measure by a margin of 52.8% to 47.2%, according to RUV. 

A "yes" vote would have sent the government back to Brussels -  while any deal would have required a second referendum and ratification by all 27 member states. Now, the issue is shelved and moot.

Before the 'no' vote, Social Democrat Prime Minister Kristrún Frostadóttir described the vote as "an opportunity."

Opponents suggested this was nothing more than deception - with the government trying to convince people "that we are not really applying, that we are merely looking into what membership would entail," Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, a former foreign minister and current lawmaker for the opposition Independence Party, said in an interview with The Epoch Times. "If you apply to join the EU, you are applying to join the EU."

Membership, he said, would mean EU law overriding Icelandic law, a sweeping transfer of legislative and executive power, and the jurisdiction of the EU's courts on top.

Haraldur Ólafsson, a physics professor who chairs the eurosceptic movement Heimssýn, told The Epoch Times the question was worded so that people "find it very difficult to say no to discussions."

Applying without wanting to join, he added, makes "a fool of the European Union." "You should try to win over the people of the country before you submit an application, instead of submitting one in camouflage," he said.

Iceland Prime Minister Kristrun Frostadottir participates in a listening session on the upcoming referendum in Reykjavik, Iceland on Aug. 26, 2026. Jonathan Nackstrand/AFP via Getty Images

As the Epoch Times notes further, Iceland applied to join the EU in July 2009, months after its banks collapsed. Talks opened in 2010, and 11 of 35 policy chapters had been provisionally closed by the time a new center-right government froze the process in 2013. The fisheries chapter, the most sensitive of all, was never opened.

In March 2015, Reykjavík asked Brussels to no longer regard it as a candidate country.

The current government contends that the application nonetheless remains valid, a view the European Commission has endorsed. Thordarson disputes this. The "still valid" line, he said, was the product of government lobbying in Brussels and "came as a total surprise to all of us."

He also said that visits by European ministers to Reykjavík over the summer to urge a "yes" amount to "foreign interference."

Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares and his Austrian counterpart, Beate Meinl-Reisinger, both spoke favorably of Icelandic membership during visits to the country in June, with the referendum on the agenda.

France's Jean-Noël Barrot struck a similar note during an official visit in July, saying Iceland "had nothing to lose" by reopening talks.

The Greenland Factor

The government's own explanation for the timing points not to Brussels but to Washington. Frostadóttir's center-left coalition, formed after the late-2024 election, had pledged a referendum by 2027. In March it brought the vote forward, weeks after U.S. President Donald Trump renewed his push to acquire Greenland, which he said has become a national security concern for the United States because of increasing Russian and Chinese influence over the Arctic.

Foreign Minister Thorgerdur Katrín Gunnarsdóttir said it would be "both naive and irresponsible" not to take the moment in history into account.

Snærós Sindradóttir Bachmann, executive director of the European Movement in Iceland, told The Epoch Times that the vote is "about human rights and democracy, and about standing with like-minded nations against this threat from the West," a reference to Washington's pressure on Greenland.

"Greenland is 290 kilometers [about 180 miles] away from us. We have to be realistic," she said.

Eggertsson, for his part, said he was "very cautious about speculating that similar pressure will be directed at Iceland," citing the country's "strong and longstanding ties with the United States."

But as larger powers grow more willing to apply pressure, he said, "stronger cooperation with allies and like-minded countries becomes increasingly important." He added: "I would not frame this as turning away from the United States or from NATO."

Iceland has no armed forces of its own. A founding member of NATO, it relies for its defense on a 1951 agreement with the United States. In March, it also signed a security and defense partnership with the EU covering Arctic and maritime security, cyber issues, and economic security.

The Greenland episode weighs on her, Bachmann said, and she's concerned it does not seem to worry many of her compatriots.

Thordarson, who said he too objected to Trump's statements on Greenland, dismissed the argument as "a pretext" and a narrative that "does not hold up." Frostadóttir, he added, had not campaigned on a referendum on reopening accession talks.

Ólafsson was blunter: the government, he said, had blown the Greenland issue "light-years out of proportion."

Greenland has weighed on the debate "much less than people abroad would think," Oddsson said. "The topics actually being discussed are much closer to home: the currency, fisheries, agriculture, and questions of sovereignty."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 12:15

Druckenmiller Warning: The Bond Market Already Priced It

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Recently, Stanley Druckenmiller wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal. The “Druckenmiller warning” hit on August 24, and within a day, the financial press turned it into a soap opera. Some of the headlines were “Mentor scolds protégé,” and “Billionaire slams the Treasury Secretary.” Then, the revelation that he wrote it with the help of AI somehow became its own headline.

However, while the media was busy making headlines, the argument was lost. Stanley Druckenmiller did not forecast a debt crisis, nor pitch a trade. What he said was something difficult to fit in a headline, and it was something the bond market has already said for him.

What Actually Happened On August 19

On August 19th, the Treasury said it would double the size of its long-dated buyback operations to at least $4 billion. That operation will run from September 9 through November 4 (it hasn’t started yet) and is aimed at the long end of the curve. The timing of the announcement was the tell, and the heart of the Druckenmiller warning, as the move came right after yields hit their highest level in about 19 years. Yields dropped on the news, but by the next trading day, the bond rally was reversed. The long bond has hovered in the 5.2% range since then.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent then told CNBC the operations could run bigger than $4 billion. Days later, senior officials floated the idea of using the department’s nearly $950 billion cash account to help fund the purchases. What is crucial to understand is that these actions are a very different conversation from “liquidity support.”

You do not need to support a market you yourself describe as having strong, consistent sponsorship, and that strong sponsorship is the definition of a healthy market. However, the Treasury intervened anyway right after yields peaked, which is why the market read it as “price management” and shrugged.

What The Druckenmiller Warning Actually Says

I posted the link to Druckenmiller’s warning above, and encourage you to read the piece closely. When you do, you will realize that the popular summary falls apart.

Most notably, the article was not a claim that yields are about to spiral. What Druckenmiller suggests is that a 30-year bond at 5.5% is an “invoice,” not a “crisis,” nor was it a claim that the “bond vigilantes” have finally arrived. He actually described the opposite: a market he called “a pushover that had finally begun to clear its throat,” and the bond market has been too calm, rather than too violent.

However, Druckenmiller’s real target is structural. To wit: the long bond, in his framing, is “the only fiscal disciplinarian the U.S. has left.” He states that if you suppress that signal, you subsidize the one thing Washington does reliably well: “delay.”

While many currently point fingers at the Republicans, particularly as we approach the mid-term elections, the reality is that neither party has the will to touch entitlements with the market applying pressure. But more importantly, without that pressure, neither party has shown the will to touch them either. Such is why entitlements are called the “third rail of politics,” because if you touch them, your political career is toast.

There’s a second layer that most of the media coverage skipped. Historically, yield management has always started as a technical operation. However, as with most things in Government, it tends to end as a more permanent policy commitment. From 1942 to 1951, the Fed capped long Treasury yields to finance the war. Naturally, that cap outlived the war by years before the Treasury-Fed Accord finally killed it. The wall between managing the debt and managing bond prices was built on purpose. Unfortunately, that “wall” gets blurred by this intervention.

The last time this happened, it looked like this.

The gap at the center of the Druckenmiller warning is the space between what he wrote and how it’s being read. That gap is wide enough to matter. The table lays it out.

The Strongest Case Against The Druckenmiller Warning

To be fair, the bond bears have a valid point. Someone will wave the whole thing off as $4 billion against a market north of $30 trillion, a rounding error. So, what is all the fuss about? They are correct about the arithmetic. Four billion dollars cannot set the long end, and the recent round-trip in yields proves it. However, that also exposes the risk in the argument. You can’t call an operation both impotent and dangerous in the same breath without saying which one it is.

(The chart below shows the history and magnitude of previous buybacks. This is not unprecedented by any measure.)

There is a much better version of the pushback, and it comes from people like Jon Hilsenrath. He noted that a move in long yields isn’t purely fiscal information but also reflects dealer balance sheets, hedging flows, and the financing of levered positions. The March 2020 and 2022 gilt crises both showed that liquidity can seize up even when the fundamentals look fine. Furthermore, Bessent’s stated case is that the Treasury sees something about market functioning that outsiders don’t. That probably isn’t as crazy as it sounds on its face.

So where does that leave the Druckenmiller warning? In our opinion, it is much stronger than its critics allow, for one reason. The danger was never the four billion dollars. The mistake is the precedent: the signal that the Treasury will now step in to defend a price. Once the market believes that, every selloff becomes a test of official resolve, and the tests only get bigger. This is the very definition of “moral hazard” that we discussed previously. More notably, the bond market has already ruled on this point.

Bessent’s actions run counter to Kevin Warsh’s recent mandate to remove the “Fed Signal” from the market. For investors, this means we will need to watch the next moves from both Bessent and Warsh.

What The Druckenmiller Warning Means For Bond Investors

The future is currently uncertain. What will happen with oil prices, tariffs, and political policy? The mid-term elections are coming quickly, and there are signs of both economic weaknesses and strengths. The Fed is signaling it is backing away from market support, but the Treasury says it is still there. It’s all confusing, but for investors managing their own portfolio, it suggests several changes to both strategy and holdings.

1. Do not buy the long bond for the buyback bid. A $4 billion operation is a backstop, not a floor under prices. Supply at the long end is getting heavier as deficits run near 6% of GDP. Furthermore, corporate issuance is competing for the same buyers. The 20- to 30-year part of the curve is now a political football. Political footballs trade with extra volatility.

2. Own the belly of the curve, the 5- to 10-year part. That is where you capture most of the yield with far less duration risk. You also reduce exposure risk to whatever “policy commitment” the long end gets dragged into. At a 10-year near 4.7%, the coupon does real work as you are paid to wait. Just take that interest rate “carry” where the duration risk is SMALL.

3. Lastly, it could pay to keep some inflation protection in the mix. If the Treasury escalates its interventions and funds long-bond purchases with bills or its cash account, that’s a quiet form of easing. However, that is occurring while inflation still runs above the Fed’s 2% target. In that environment, TIPS will earn their place in portfolios. But the risk is that you cap your returns if the term premium keeps grinding higher on increasing supply.

Here is an example of the 40% allocation in a 60/40 equity/bond portfolio.

So, here is the question worth asking.

“If there’s no crisis, why not just own the long bond and clip the coupon?”

The answer is the escalation path, so you will want to watch the Treasury General Account. If Treasury actually deploys the $950 billion to defend a yield level, Druckenmiller’s “technical tool becomes policy commitment” line stops being theory, and the trade shifts toward steeper curves, more inflation protection, and shorter nominal duration.

The one thing that would push me to extend into the long end with conviction is the opposite of intervention. A credible plan on the deficit would do more for the long bond than any buyback. This is the real point of the “Druckenmiller Warning,” and it’s mine too. I’ve argued before that the debt problem is a crisis without a calendar. However, that is what the waiting looks like.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 11:40

CIA Director Pushed Trump-Putin-Zelensky Summit During Moscow Visit: Report

Yet another take has been issued, and more alleged details, on CIA Director John Ratcliffe's Tuesday trip to Moscow, which took place amid great secrecy and still even days later has only been subject of immense speculation.

Axios is reporting over the weekend that the CIA chief proposed a trilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin, US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky - when he met with top Kremlin intelligence officials but was not granted a direct meeting with Putin himself.

NBC/Getty Images: CIA Director John Ratcliffe, left, held talks in Moscow with Russia's foreign intelligence chief, Sergey Naryshkin, this week.

"Of course, President Putin is immediately briefed on everything," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said, calling the meeting "a positive phenomenon" while not giving additional details.

The war has quite obviously ramped up this summer, with tit-for-tat strikes expanding beyond just military and energy targets, to include food and retailing companies, and increasingly even civilian neighborhoods.

According to some details via Axios:

• Ratcliffe's visit was partly aimed at determining whether Russia's heads of intelligence services could help convince Putin to move toward resuming U.S.-mediated negotiations with Ukraine, the sources said.
• On Friday, U.S. officials briefed Zelensky on Ratcliffe's talks in Moscow and the proposal for a trilateral summit.
• The Trump administration has raised the idea in the past. Zelensky has been on board, but Putin has rejected it.

Over in the Middle East, the Iran war has not gone well for Washington, and so the White House has recently pivoted back to seeking a war forward toward peace in Ukraine, needing a foreign conflict 'win'.

However, US admin officials have signaled they are not ready to force Ukraine into a 'bad' peace deal. Also according to Axios, "Zelensky's chief of staff, Kyrylo Budanov, told local media on Thursday that U.S.-mediated talks with Russia could resume in September."

As for Trump, on Wednesday he told Glenn Beck in an interview: "We would like to see the Ukraine war end," adding that his administration was "working very hard to get that war ended."

Up close: Massive missile warehouse explosion near Kiev

Ukrainian media suggest it may have held Patriot missiles

The scale of the blast is staggering pic.twitter.com/uUE4gWRizo

— RT (@RT_com) August 30, 2026

Concerning the CIA chief's visit to Moscow, some have said that it may have been focused on Iran, amid Washington warnings for Russia to cease helping Tehran, following prior widespread allegations that Russian intelligence provided targeting information of US bases and troops across the Mideast region.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 11:05

Fly British Flags In UK And Face Jail... But Pakistan And Palestine Flags Get A Pass

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Britain's largest local authority has spent a year treating the Union Flag and the St George's Cross as a public-order problem. On Saturday the picture sharpened again: the legal squeeze now circulating around Birmingham's flag war is being described as a ban aimed at England and the United Kingdom, while other national colours keep their place in the city's official life.

Birmingham City Council has gone to the High Court to stop "unauthorised attachments" on the highway. Breach of an injunction of this kind can mean unlimited fines and up to two years in prison.

The people named in the papers are the campaigners who put British flags on lampposts. But the council still finds time to raise other nations' flags outside the town hall and light the city library in foreign colours. To top it all off, they have reportedly confirmed that anyone raising foreign flags will be exempt from the new ban.

?NEWS: Birmingham City Council have confirmed that the Flag Ban will only apply to the flags of England??????? and the UK ??

Flags from other countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Palestine will all be exempt

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) August 29, 2026

On 26 August the council submitted its application to the High Court. The named respondents include Raise the Colours co-founder Ryan Bridge, Elliott Stanley, Julian Keane, Ross Child, Billy Allison, Ben Cullen, Mark Keating and "persons unknown."

The catch-all clause is the point. If a judge grants the order, it is not only the named men who are in the frame. Anyone who keeps putting flags on lamp columns, railings or other street furniture without permission can be pulled into contempt proceedings.

Green councillor Jane Baston, cabinet member for equalities, communities and social justice, said: "The council is taking a lawful, proportionate and evidence-led approach to unauthorised attachments on the highway. This includes pursuing injunctive action based on the evidence gathered to date."

She added: "Our priority is to protect public safety, staff and contractor welfare, community cohesion and the responsible use of public funds. We ask residents and community groups to support this approach and to ensure any displays are placed only where permission exists."

The authority insists the action "is not directed at any particular community, belief or viewpoint." It says officers have "witnessed incidents that have involved harassment, intimidation or obstruction during removal activity."

That is the official script. The record of the last twelve months tells a different story about which flags trigger the machinery of the state.

Raise the Colours started in the Birmingham area last summer and spread across England. Thousands of St George's Crosses and Union Flags went up on lampposts, roundabouts and bridges. The council answered with safety language: attachments on tall columns, risk to motorists, LED upgrades, highways law. Flags twenty-five feet in the air became a danger to life.

Bridge has not offered the council the surrender it wants. On Talk TV he said he would keep going. "100% I will be carrying on. If I go to jail for it, so be it."

FLAG BAN FURY

Birmingham City Council wants to stop groups such as Raise the Colours putting up the national flag — but co-founder Ryan Bridge vows to defy the ban.

'100% I will be carrying on. If I go to jail for it, so be it.'@TVKev @RTCORGUK pic.twitter.com/0sRNf45Ti7

— Talk (@TalkTV) August 27, 2026

Times columnist Matthew Syed, sitting with Kevin O'Sullivan, refused to treat the flag as a social contaminant. "I believe in the flag, I believe in the nation," he said. "I think that if you don't have a strong sense of nationhood, it's very difficult to do anything." He further argued that without a coherent nation, you get caste, clan and tribe. You do not get a country that can function.

"I believe in the flag, I believe in the nation."

Times columnist Matthew Syed and Kevin O'Sullivan react to Birmingham City Council seeking a High Court injunction to stop members of anti-migrant group Raise the Colours from putting up flags across the city.@TVKev... pic.twitter.com/fG2OxnjP3F

— Talk (@TalkTV) August 27, 2026

Former Metropolitan Police detective Peter Bleksley called the jail threat "absolutely scandalous." The Free Speech Union called it "truly mental." Reform UK's Birmingham group leader, councillor Jex Parkin, said: "It is extraordinary that we have reached a point where people peacefully displaying the Union Flag or St George's Cross could potentially find themselves before the courts, with breach of any eventual injunction carrying extremely serious consequences, including imprisonment."

He added: "The Union Flag and St George's Cross belong to everybody in this country. They should unite us, not divide us."

Conservative group leader councillor Robert Alden said the flags are "a unifying force celebrating our shared culture and heritage" and called on the council to enable formal neighbourhood displays instead of dragging patriots into court.

The phrase that is repeated ad nauseam in Birmingham is "community cohesion," yet it was not the governing principle when other flags were raised in the street.

For months after October 7 2023, Palestinian flags flew from lampposts in parts of the city. Nearly a third of Birmingham's residents are Muslim. The council did not race to the High Court. A leaked internal message from cabinet member Majid Mahmood, reported in 2025, explained the real constraint. On Palestine flags he wrote: "We are taking these down, but we need the support of the police due to issues that have cropped up when we first tried to take them down."

Reform UK's Robert Jenrick commented, "It is ridiculous that the council is taking down England flags and Union flags while Palestine flags are allowed to remain," adding "It's blatant two-tier bias against the British people."

Remember, Birmingham Council never moved for an injunction when it was just Palestine flags being flown from lampposts.

No threats of up to two years imprisonment.

"Community cohesion" wasn't a concern until people put up St George's and Union flags. A two-tier approach. pic.twitter.com/j7EAow80BY

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) August 27, 2026

Foreign colours get to stay, yet the national flag is treated as an attachment to be litigated out of existence.

The hypocrisy is not confined to protest banners. It is civic policy.

In July the Somali flag was raised outside Birmingham Council House in Victoria Square, with civic representatives present. The Library of Birmingham was lit blue and white for the occasion.

Reform UK's Birmingham group put the contrast in writing: "Only weeks ago the Somali flag was officially raised outside Birmingham Council House with civic representatives present. Earlier this month the Pakistan flag was raised outside the Council House at a ceremony hosted by the Lord Mayor."

"There is something badly wrong," the group said, "if Birmingham City Council can proudly accommodate the national flags of countries around the world while people are made to feel that displaying the Union Flag or St George's Cross is somehow provocative."

The same authority now determined to strip British flags from the streets has been happy to fly the Somali flag from the civic building itself.

Birmingham council seeking to ban British flags 'for public safety' yet happy to fly Somali flag outside its council house. pic.twitter.com/4aVCNPeNTy

— Robert Abel (@rj_abel) August 29, 2026

The library routine is now a seasonal fixture. Green and white for Pakistan Independence Day. Orange, white and green for India. The same council that scrambles to criminalise British flags will bathe a landmark in another country's colours overnight.

Birmingham Council will happily raise the Somali flag, Pakistan flag and light up the Library of B'ham in Pakistan flag colours.

This would be fine in Pakistan or Somalia. However, we're not. Somehow, raising the Union and St George's flags creates "community cohesion" concerns. pic.twitter.com/1PUh08Ijnq

— Chris Rose (@ArchRose90) August 29, 2026

Jamaica has had the same civic courtesy. Footage from Council House shows the Jamaican flag raised for independence day on the same steps now being used to lecture English residents about cohesion.

Agree/disagree with the flying of a foreign flag?

Birmingham City Council House

??Jamaican independence day in Birmingham.. pic.twitter.com/9AQIUKnwLb

— 'Seeing is believing' (@dave24144975) August 6, 2025

Last year a Pakistani flag flew over the central square.

pic.twitter.com/8CzYcOm1Yp
Are these the new 'British values'?

?This is the same central Birmingham square where the city council banned Britain First, claiming the group didn't share their values. ?A Pakistani flag flies over that exact spot.

?Is this the new standard for...

— Yossi BenYakar (@YossiBenYakar) October 22, 2025

They're seemingly happy to fly any flag at all, except for British ones. Why is that?

Here's why...

"Why would Birmingham City Council ban our National Flags?"

The Council: pic.twitter.com/XPLp72CToa

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) August 29, 2026

What happened to diversity being a good thing?

Councillor Alan Feeney, the Conservative shadow cabinet member for city services, said the obvious thing the cabinet will not. "This simply is not a priority for residents. Birmingham has an ongoing bin strike, roads filled with potholes and travellers breaking onto parks across the city, costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. The council's focus should be on dealing with these issues, not taking down flags that were placed as a symbol of national pride."

Labour's remaining voice on the council, group leader Nicky Brennan, offered the opposing theology: "We cannot allow a small group of people to attempt to divide the communities of Birmingham."

The communities he is referring to claim to be divided by the English flag. They are apparently knitted together by the Somali flag on the Council House and a library washed in the colours of Islamabad.

Birmingham is the prize because it is huge, broke, and demographically transformed. Almost a third Muslim. Large Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Somali populations. A political class that has learned to speak the language of cohesion while practising a hierarchy of flags.

The enforcement now taking shape singles out England and the UK while other countries' colours remain in the clear.

A nation that will jail a man for the Cross of St George, and light a library for Pakistan, has told its own people where they stand.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 10:30

El Nino Fuels Atlantic Hurricane Drought As Dolly Eyes Florida

The 2026 Atlantic hurricane season has yet to produce its first hurricane, putting the Atlantic Basin within reach of its latest start on record. There's a big reason for this: The intensifying El Niño is largely responsible for the strong wind shear that disrupts tropical system development.

Four named tropical storms have formed through late August, including Tropical Storm Dolly, but none has strengthened into a hurricane during the season's first three months as peak hurricane season nears, around Sept. 10.

Focusing on Tropical Storm Dolly, the National Hurricane Center's latest update early Sunday shows that the storm is now a strong tropical wave and is set to produce showers and thunderstorms across Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the northern Leeward Islands.

"The remnants of Dolly could bring heavy rains and gusty winds to portions of the Leeward Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico over the next couple of days," the NHC wrote in an update earlier today. An accompanying cone of uncertainty map shows that the storm may track toward South Florida.

2 am Aug 30: There are two systems with a low chance of development. Interests along the LA and Upper TX coasts should monitor the Gulf system #97L. The remnants of Dolly could bring heavy rains and gusty winds to portions of the Leeward Islands, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto… pic.twitter.com/SGswhnrE1Y

— National Hurricane Center (@NHC_Atlantic) August 30, 2026

Latest from Polymarket: What will be the name of the first hurricane in the Atlantic during the 2026 hurricane season?

A second area of low pressure was located about 125 miles south of southeastern Louisiana. Its thunderstorms have become more concentrated since Saturday, but surface observations showed that the system had not yet strengthened. Gradual development remains possible as it drifts toward the Louisiana and upper Texas coasts during the next several days.

 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 09:55

Taxpayers Lost $65 Billion On Obamacare Fraud Last Year

Taxpayers spent $65 billion on health insurance premiums for people who either didn't exist or didn't qualify for benefits in two federal programs in 2024, according to an Aug. 26 report from Paragon Health Institute.

Expanded Medicaid and Obamacare, the signature programs of the Affordable Care Act, improperly enrolled a combined 14.3 million people that year, researchers concluded.

Expanded Medicaid allows states to enroll people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, versus up to 100 percent for traditional Medicaid. That limit was about $35,600 for a family of three in 2024.

Obamacare was open to people earning up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level at that time, about $103,000 for a family of three.

Both programs are administered through the Affordable Care Act Marketplace, with coverage provided by commercial insurance companies.

As Lawrence Wilson details below, via The Epoch Times, researchers estimate that about 34 percent of all Marketplace enrollees in 2024 were either fraudulent, duplicates, or simply didn't meet the benefit criteria.

And the number went up the next year, researchers said.

"Improper exchange enrollment increased by more than 26 percent from 2024 to 2025 - up to an estimated 6.5 million enrollees," the report stated.

Enrollment Problems

Researchers studied federal data from surveys, program enrollment, and spending and concluded that more than 9 million Medicaid expansion enrollees in 2024 probably didn't qualify for the benefit.

Those were likely people whose income was over the limit, did not meet citizenship, immigration, or residency requirements, or should have been enrolled in traditional Medicaid.

With Obamacare, the $0 premium policies made possible during the post-COVID years became a target for fraud, according to Paragon President Brian Blase.

Testifying before Congress in December, Blase said many people were enrolled in the program without their knowledge by unscrupulous insurance brokers, prompting the federal government to send a commission check to them - and premium payments to an insurance company.

These phantom enrollees are detected in part by their lack of activity once enrolled, Blase said.

Also, 28 states had more people enrolled in Obamacare than there were people in the state who met the income requirements.

Skepticism

Paragon had previously reported its enrollment analysis, though the cost calculation is new.

Based on previous reports, some observers have questioned the assertion that improper enrollment, particularly in Obamacare, is as widespread as the think tank concluded.

"There is no evidence of systemic fraud, waste, or abuse in [state-based marketplaces]," according to Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace.

As for the lack of activity by some enrollees, America's Health Insurance Plans released a statement in 2025 saying, "A 'no-claims' year is evidence that a consumer stayed healthy or only had a few months of coverage - not that taxpayer money was misdirected or that their policy was illegitimate."

Others observers say Paragon's research method doesn't factor in all the variables. "There are a number of reasons why people who report incomes somewhat above 138 percent of the poverty line in a survey may be eligible for the Medicaid expansion," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said about a previous Paragon report.

Yet in December 2025, the Government Accountability Office reported that investigators were able to enroll 20 nonexistent identities in Obamacare in 2024 by using Social Security numbers that had never been issued to any person and other easily created counterfeit documents.

Of the 20 false enrollments, 18 were still active in September 2025, costing taxpayers more than $10,000 per month.

Investigators also found 26,000 accounts that received subsidies in 2023 based on Social Security numbers that matched records in the Social Security Administration's death file.

Taxpayers paid more than $94 million in subsidies for one year based on false enrollments uncovered by the investigators.

Savings and Recovery

The federal government has taken aggressive action to root out improper enrollment over the last two years.

That includes suspending agents and brokers from the program for suspected fraud, reinstating data matching between federal programs to prevent duplicate enrollment, canceling phantom enrollments, and requiring Medicaid eligibility recertification every six months.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reported in January it had removed more than 1 million enrollees who were concurrently enrolled in Obamacare and Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, or who had failed to file and reconcile previously received subsidies.

Another 250,000 were removed who'd been enrolled without their consent.

Those actions produced $10 billion in annual savings, according to a government statement.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 08:45

Poland, US Discuss Establishing Permanent American Military Bases

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

Poland and Pentagon officials are in discussions about possibly locating several American military bases in the country, Polish Deputy Defense Minister Paweł Zalewski said after a meeting of the North Atlantic Council at NATO headquarters in Brussels Aug. 27.

Zalewski said he met with Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby about plans for the bases and defense policy.

"The American presence in Poland can encompass various defense capabilities," Zalewski told Polish Radio after the meeting. "We believe it doesn't have to be concentrated in one place. Of course, there are several locations we want to discuss with the U.S. side where such a presence would be truly massive. However, we are still talking about several bases and several locations."

Poland formally requested new permanent U.S. military bases in June after Trump pledged to send 5,000 additional troops to the country. About 10,000 U.S. troops are already stationed in Poland, which spends about $15,000 for each, according to the country's defense department.

Poland's priorities are to secure defense capabilities the country currently lacks, such as reconnaissance and command functions, rather than simply increasing troop numbers, Zalewski said.

The bases would be a permanent strategy for the United States and not just a reaction to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, according to Poland.

"A permanent U.S. presence would reflect America's long-term strategic interest in the country, not merely respond to the recent activities of Russia," Zalewski said.

The discussion also included nuclear weapons logistics, according to the deputy defense minister.

He added, however, that Poland didn't want nuclear warheads stationed in the country.

"Poland does not want to have nuclear warheads on this territory," Zalewski said. "We want to participate in NATO nuclear deterrence but that does not mean to have nuclear warheads on our territory."

Poland's Minister of National Defense Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz appeared to clarify the comments in a statement on X later in the day.

"To dispel any doubts: Poland remains steadfastly interested in participating in the NATO Nuclear Sharing program," Kosiniak-Kamysz said in the post. "We are also conducting talks regarding the proposal for participation in the European nuclear protective umbrella. Our government's stance on these issues is unequivocal."

The Pentagon didn't respond to a request for comment about the bases by publication time.

Colby visited Belgium this week to meet with European allies and press them to increase their defense expenditures as Washington evaluates its policy toward the region.

The Pentagon asked the allies to assess their commitment to U.S. foreign policy goals as part of a European Force review launched in June by War Secretary Pete Hegseth. The review examines the future deployment of about 80,000 U.S. troops across Europe, with nearly half of them expected in Germany.

Colby introduced the new framework, which he dubbed "NATO 3.0," earlier this year.

Some countries are concerned the review will result in U.S. troop cuts in Europe. President Donald Trump has threatened to withdraw troops from countries that refused to help the United States secure the Strait of Hormuz during the Iran conflict.

In May, the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of 5,000 troops from Germany after tensions flared between Trump and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz over the Iran war.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said Friday that Europe and Canada had accepted a more equitable share of defense spending since last year.

"Still, there is much more to be done and we'll get there," Rutte said.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 08:10

Canada Is Poaching America’s Top Scientists

Canada is taking advantage of growing uncertainty within the US academic system by offering hundreds of millions of dollars to researchers willing to move north, according to Bloomberg.

The Canadian government has committed C$504 million, or roughly $362 million, to support 64 scientists and scholars joining universities across the country. Three quarters of the recruits currently work in the United States, many at institutions including Harvard, MIT and the University of North Carolina. The remaining researchers are arriving from a dozen other countries, including China, Japan, Germany and the UK. Nearly half of the group coming from the US are Canadian citizens returning home.

The new arrivals include Sara Seager, a leading planetary scientist leaving MIT for the University of Toronto, and MIT materials scientist James LeBeau. The University of British Columbia is adding Brian Kuhlman, whose protein research was connected to work recognized by the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, along with Harvard computational biologist Curtis Huttenhower, who studies the relationship between microorganisms and human health.

Bloomberg writes that each researcher will receive support over an eight-year period, with their work concentrated in fields Canada considers strategically important, including health care, artificial intelligence, advanced computing, environmental science and commercially promising technologies.

The recruitment drive comes as US universities face federal research cuts, a more restrictive immigration environment and continuing disputes with the Trump administration. Canadian university officials say those pressures have left some researchers questioning their long-term prospects in the United States, creating an opening for Canada to strengthen its own academic institutions.

The awards are part of a much larger plan introduced by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government last year. Ottawa intends to spend C$1.7 billion over 12 years to bring more than 1,000 researchers to Canada, including up to 100 internationally recognized scholars selected for heavily funded research chairs.

Canada has also proposed a faster immigration process for H-1B visa holders affected by changes in the United States, although that program has not yet begun. The European Union is pursuing a similar strategy through a €500 million effort to attract scientists interested in leaving the US.

Canadian officials are expected to name another group of research chairs in the coming months.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 07:35

An Illegal Migrant Tried To Saw Off A Man's Head; You Won't Believe What The BBC Did Next...

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A leaked internal email shows a senior BBC executive reaching for the language of "solidarity" after a Sudanese asylum seeker was charged with trying to brutally murder a Northern Irish man in the street. The corporation's instinct was not to dwell on the victim, but instead to soothe colleagues "who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries."

A local man is carved up on a Belfast pavement, unrest follows, and the state broadcaster act as if the real emergency is that imported staff might feel "particularly vulnerable."

Investigative journalist Steven Edginton published the leak on Friday. Jack Whyte, the BBC's Chief Technology Officer, wrote to staff after the backlash that followed the attack on Stephen Ogilvie. Whyte said he wanted to "express our solidarity with colleagues who may feel particularly vulnerable or fearful at this time, including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries."

Leak: BBC boss sent a message of "solidarity" to non-British staff after an African migrant allegedly attempted to behead a Northern Ireland-born man.

Jack Whyte, the BBC's Chief Technology Officer, condemned "hatred" and offered staff wellbeing support following unrest in...

— Steven Edginton (@StevenEdginton) August 28, 2026

He condemned "hatred, intimidation, and violence in all its forms" and added that the BBC is "committed to fostering an environment where every colleague feels supported, included, and able to bring their whole self to work."

Whyte's wording is a tell. "Including those who have come to Northern Ireland and the UK from other countries" is the only group specified. Native staff who watched a man carved up on a Belfast street are left to infer that their fear does not count as vulnerability. Their anxiety is "hatred" adjacent, while the imported colleague's anxiety is a welfare priority.

A source inside the corporation put the omission in plainer English: "The BBC offered solidarity to foreign staff but not to native Brits who might be worried about illegal migrants beheading them."

? BREAKING: BBC executive emailed solidarity to non-British staff after the attempted beheading of Stephen Ogilvie by African migrant Hadi Alodid in Northern Ireland.

• Jack Whyte, the BBC's Chief Technology Officer, wrote to staff after riots in Belfast.

• The email offered...

— The Mercian (@TheMercianNews) August 28, 2026

The email was sent in June, after nights of disorder in Belfast. It has only now been dragged into public view. The attack was ugly enough to ignite streets. The official response was to flatten the language, script the aftermath, and treat public anger as the problem to be managed.

The assault took place back on June 8 on Kinnaird Avenue in north Belfast. Police later told a court they found a man armed with a knife sitting on another man. Officers pulled the attacker off. Bystanders had already piled in. People on the footage can be heard shouting: "He's trying to cut his head off."

Hadi Alodid, 30, a Sudanese national with an address on nearby Duncairn Avenue, appeared at Belfast Magistrates' Court charged with the attempted murder of Stephen Ogilvie, possession of a knife in a public place, and threats to kill an NHS radiographer. He used an Arabic interpreter, made no reply to the charges, and was remanded in custody. District Judge Stephen Keown refused bail, citing the risk of reoffending, harm to the public, flight, and public disorder.

Court evidence revealed that Ogilvie, in his forties, lost his left eye. His right eye was badly damaged. He suffered deep cuts to his head, face, neck and back.

A detective told the court that while Alodid was being treated for a hand injury he said: "I've killed someone, I don't know if they are dead." He is also alleged to have told medical staff: "I will kill you."

Alodid's route into the United Kingdom was the now-familiar Irish back door. Police and reporting established that he travelled from Sudan to Paris, flew to Dublin, then took a bus across the border into Belfast in February 2023 and claimed asylum the same day. In September 2023 he was granted leave to remain until 2028.

A local woman filmed near the scene described Ogilvie as someone she had known for years: hard of hearing, struggling with daily life, the sort of man who still offered help. She said two migrants had only moved into nearby accommodation four days earlier. Ogilvie, she claimed, had assisted them as they settled. She said the pair later jumped him, and claimed that a second Sudanese man was still at large.

Ogilvie's family released a statement of devastation, thanking those who intervened and the emergency services, and asking for calm. It also contained the now-standard paragraph: "We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including from within our healthcare system and hospitality sector, and we depend on them to make our country work."

Readers noticed the cadence. "Our loved one." Generic gratitude. A pivot from a butchered relative to the national faith in imported labour. Commentators said it read like a template. Subsequent reporting on the Home Office's Research, Information and Communications Unit suggested that suspicion was not paranoia.

RICU, set up in 2007 under the Prevent banner by former MI6 officer Charles Farr, sits in that grey zone between the Home Office and the security services. Professor Anthony Glees has described it as occupying "that kind of shadowy area between what the Home Office does and what the security service MI5 ought to be doing."

A Home Office spokesman would only say RICU "provides analysis on extremist use of propaganda and exploitation of the internet" and "cannot comment on its operations."

Sources quoted after the Belfast unrest said the unit worked with the PSNI's C3 intelligence branch to identify online "calls to protest," feed police a line that cast demonstrators as "unsympathetic thugs rather than activists," and make sure family liaison officers were "well briefed." One source said you can "see their fingerprints all over the statements released by the families of victims in these volatile situations - they usually have a similar tone."

The same Whitehall reflex is now in court on another front. Families of people killed or wrecked by foreign offenders are fighting the Ministry of Justice's attempt to keep nationality breakdowns of convictions sealed.

The Information Commissioner ordered the figures released. Labour's justice department appealed. Relatives of Rhiannon Whyte - the 27-year-old mother stabbed 23 times with a screwdriver by Sudanese small-boat arrival Deng Chol Majek - are among those demanding the data.

Alex Whyte, Rhiannon's sister, told GB News she felt "sick, disgusted and completely let down." Labour, she said, is "too afraid to admit" what open borders have done, urging "Open your eyes. You are so aware of what is happening, but you are too afraid to admit it."

Her mother, Siobhan Whyte, called the refusal "diabolical" and pointed to Home Office leaflets telling asylum seekers that rape is illegal and what the age of consent is. "They know they're a danger, and that's the sad reality of it."

They know publication would detonate the official story. That is why they spend public money to keep the information sealed.

This latest BBC leak sits on a pile of interventions that all point the same way: keep the public from connecting crime, culture and the people being moved into the country.

Culture department plans have sought to force platforms to boost BBC, ITV and Channel 4 content in users' feeds under the banner of fighting "disinformation," as if the remedy for lost trust is to pipe the least trusted institutions back into the algorithm by law.

The same project turned up in a media green paper aimed at YouTube's recommendation system: privileged placement for "trusted" public-service output, with legislation in reserve if the platforms will not play along. Independent creators who covered migrant crime without the approved adjectives would be the ones starved of reach.

Entertainment has been pressed into the same service. BBC fictional soap EastEnders brought in Ade Lamuye, a campaigner for "migration and racial justice," to help shape storylines. Lamuye has said "entertainment and media holds influence and power to make real change." The change, on the evidence, is to recast mass immigration as a moral test the audience must pass.

Children were not spared either. Pro-migrant charity Heard briefed producers on the CBBC series Pickle Storm, a comedy about a young "alien" fleeing persecution and settling in a British town. Heard described the work as a strategy to "tap into children's media and directly impact framing of migration in children's content."

The group has taken more than £4.5 million since 2021 from left-leaning foundations, including seed support linked to George Soros's Open Society Foundations. The BBC insisted the charity "had no power to influence editing or production." Heard's own materials said the input informed the second series.

When the newsroom itself is tested, the same muscle memory appears. Newsnight turned Nigel Farage's "pure cold rage" over the Henry Nowak case into "white cold rage," then shrugged it off as a misremembering. Critics noted that the inserted word was the entire point.

Fran Unsworth, a former BBC news director, has said the atmosphere inside the organisation had become intolerable. "Just dealing with the progressive editorial issues and the bullying around them all. It was incredibly difficult." Asked whether that culture pushed her out, she answered: "I would actually say it drove me out."

That is the same hierarchy that turns a sawing motion at a man's neck into a "stabbing," that treats rioters as the story and the attacker's immigration file as an afterthought, that will go to tribunal rather than print which nationalities dominate the sex-offence columns. It is the hierarchy that lectures the public about disinformation while handing activist charities the keys to a children's comedy.

The BBC collects a compulsory fee to tell the country what happened. After Belfast it told its own staff who mattered. Foreign colleagues who might feel unsafe. Not the public that had just watched an attempted decapitation in a residential street.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/30/2026 - 07:00