The Scouring Of The American Middle Class

Authored by Artis Shepherd via The Mises Institute,

The war of words between President Donald Trump and Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has been revealed as largely histrionic. Like their predecessors—Richard Nixon and Arthur Burns—over 50 years ago, Trump and Powell have been acting out a performative charade regarding when and to what extent artificially low interest rates should go even lower in the midst of persistent inflation. The supposed sparring between Trump and Powell merely guarantees the result both want—more easy money.

In a recent speech at the obnoxious Jackson Hole symposium, Powell incredibly stated that current monetary policy was “restrictive.” He followed that up with veritable chum for easy money sharks: “…the baseline outlook and the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.”

Translation: the Fed intends to resume cutting interest rates at the next September meeting. Per the online betting marketplace Kalshi, the odds of a September rate cut immediately shot up from 59 percent to 81 percent. But whether or not Powell and the Fed cut rates in September is almost irrelevant. One need only open his eyes to see the matter clearly.

Money Everywhere

As of this writing, US stock markets are at all-time highs, with valuations (as measured by the CAPE ratio) at levels only seen once before—during the peak of the dot-com bubble in 1999. Within this milieu, margin debt has also hit an all-time high in July, meaning that investors are taking loans to speculate in stocks while ignoring the magnified risk therein.

Junk bonds—a euphemism for sub-prime corporate debt—trade at spreads as tight as they’ve ever been. In other words, investors in the risky debt of poorly performing companies are willing to accept pitifully meager returns in exchange for excessive credit risk.

The junkiest bonds of all—US Treasuries—yield essentially zero when a realistic measure of price inflation is used as the discount rate. Poorly performing companies at least have a product to offer. The US government, on the other hand, revels in the devaluation of the instrument—the US dollar—with which it pays its debts. For investors in US sovereign bonds, default and repayment are functionally indistinguishable.

Home prices are at all-time highs, with the home-price-to-income ratio near 7.5x, itself an all-time high. As a result of this imbalance, the average first-time homebuyer is now a record 38 years old. Clearly, the young are finding their options limited by home price inflation, which is leading to muted and delayed family formation.

The money supply (“M2”) has grown by 5 percent in the last 12 months, the very definition of inflation. Simultaneously, even government measures of price inflation have accelerated. CPI—the absurdly sandbagged and impractical measure of US consumer price inflation—has been above the Fed’s 2 percent target for nearly five years straight. The most recent reading showed annualized month-over-month CPI at 4.1 percent while the Producer Price Index (“PPI”)—a measure of wholesale price inflation—showed an annualized month-over-month reading of a whopping 11.5 percent.

The True Cost of Cheap Money

In the midst of this rapidly-inflating asset market and the undeniably loose monetary conditions fostered by the US government and the Fed, it behooves the rational observer to ask not just the obvious cui bono questions, but who foots the bill for this policy? Cui malo? The answer is that the average American, or the “middle class,” is the host on which the easy money parasite feeds.

Since 2008, government statistics suggest that median nominal wages have risen at an average annual pace of 3.0 percent, compared to 2.3 percent for CPI over the same period. This indicates that real wages have increased by a meager 0.7 percent annually over that timeframe. But in surveying the major expense categories for average Americans, has anything increased by only 2.3 percent per year over that period?

Apartment rent, measured nationally, has increased by 4.1 percent annually and home prices have increased by 4.2 percent annually, despite dipping significantly from 2007-2011. Home insurance is up 3.0 percent annually. Health insurance is up 5.0 percent annually. Prices for eggs and beef—basic staples of a healthy diet—are up 6.8 percent and roughly 5.0 percent (depending on the type of beef) annually, respectively.

Based on the latest available data, the average cost for a one-week vacation in the US for a family of four is roughly $8,000. That figure also happens to match the median balance of savings in the country. As a result, middle class families have a choice—enjoy a family trip and drain the savings account, or skip the leisure and keep the thinnest sliver of financial cushion in case of emergency.

In the background, the federal government continues to spend and borrow like a deranged madman, ensuring ever more inflation and dollar debasement in the future. The Trump administration is well on its way to a $2 trillion deficit this fiscal year and a $44 trillion debt balance by the time Trump leaves office in early 2029.

This dynamic is not a real problem for the asset-rich, but for the middle class it is an unrelenting pressure. Lacking assets and the resources to acquire them—recall that the median savings balance is $8,000—average Americans face the prospect of falling further behind as inflation tenaciously undermines their quality of life. In a desperate effort to keep up, many have turned to borrowing and then speculating in asset markets with the proceeds.

This toxic combination of leverage, lack of investment risk awareness, and the need to “stretch for yield” in the absence of sufficient savings rates has already led to widespread wealth destruction for average Americans. In the apartment investment market, for example, mom-and-pop investors have lost tens of billions of dollars in equity. After soliciting those funds, unscrupulous “syndicators” combined them with risky bridge loans to buy swaths of apartment properties which immediately collapsed in value when short-term interest rates began increasing in 2022. Other asset markets are in similarly perilous shape, and the average American investor does not have the benefit of a US Treasury bailout. In fact, any bailout will be at their expense.

The Long Con

At this stage, there is little that can be done to avoid a reckoning, but—contrary to popular belief—it is unlikely to take the form of a distinct, sudden crash. Rather, we are in the middle of that reckoning now—a slow and continuous degradation of life quality for the majority of the population.

Much like the similar, gradual-but-undeniable collapse of Britain over the course of the 20th century, the result of this process is a society increasingly devoid of productive virtue, with a contempt for individual freedom. In their place will continue to grow a pernicious central state apparatus obsessed with warfare, “social justice” for pet groups, and economic theories developed by the dimwitted and immoral.

The robbery of the middle class by the political class is not accidental. It is the inevitable corollary of inflation, a policy willfully chosen by the state.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 22:35

President Trump Rebukes Colombia Over Drug Trafficking Cooperation

The United States has placed Colombia on its list of countries that “fail to co-operate” in fighting drug trafficking — the first time since 1997 — blaming President Gustavo Petro’s government for record cocaine output, according to the Financial Times.

In a statement to Congress, Donald Trump said Colombia’s “coca cultivation and cocaine production have reached record highs” and that the government “failed to meet even its own vastly reduced coca eradication goals.” He argued Bogotá had undermined “years of mutually beneficial co-operation between our two countries against narco-terrorists.”

Colombia, the world’s top cocaine producer, had 253,000 hectares of coca under cultivation in 2023, yielding more than 2,600 tonnes, according to UN figures.

Petro, a former guerrilla who has floated legalising cocaine, denounced the US move: “Decades of our police, soldiers and civilians [dying] . . . in order to stop drugs reaching North American society,” he said, insisting “Everything we do really isn’t about the Colombian people — even if they get affected. It’s about stopping North American society from smearing its noses.”

The Financial Times writes that while criticising Petro’s approach, Trump praised Colombia’s security forces, who he said “continue to show skill and courage in confronting terrorist and criminal groups.” Washington also issued a waiver allowing continued programs that “advance US interests,” potentially preserving military co-operation.

The move reflects rising tensions. For years, Colombia was Washington’s closest anti-narcotics ally, receiving more than $10bn in US military aid under Plan Colombia (2000–2016). But Petro has shifted focus from eradication campaigns to intercepting drug shipments at sea, while violence and production have grown under his “Total Peace” policy.

The US decision comes alongside fresh strikes on Venezuelan drug cartels in the Caribbean and a broader regional crackdown.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 22:10

Why The Hardest Money Always Wins

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

French Emperor Napoleon III reserved a special set of aluminum cutlery for only his most honored dinner guests.

Ordinary guests had to settle for gold utensils.

In the mid-1800s, aluminum was rarer and more coveted than gold.

As a result, aluminum bullion bars were included among France’s national treasures, and aluminum jewelry became a status symbol of the French aristocracy.

Aluminum—element 13 on the periodic table—is abundant in nature, but it’s typically bound up in complex chemical compounds rather than found in its pure metallic form.

Extracting pure aluminum from these compounds was an extremely costly and complex process, making it harder to produce than gold. The price reflected that.

In 1852, aluminum was around $37 per ounce, significantly more expensive than gold at $20.67 per ounce.

But aluminum’s story was about to change dramatically.

In 1886, a groundbreaking discovery enabled the mass production of pure aluminum at a fraction of the cost.

Before this innovation, global aluminum output was just a few ounces per month.

Afterward, America’s leading aluminum company began producing 800 ounces a day. Within two decades, that same company—later known as Alcoa—was churning out over 1.4 million ounces daily.

The price of aluminum collapsed—from a staggering $550 per pound in 1852 to just $12 in 1880. By the early 1900s, a pound of aluminum cost around 20 cents.

In just over a decade, aluminum had gone from the world’s most expensive metal to one of its cheapest.

Today, aluminum is no longer a prized metal for imperial feasts or national treasuries. It’s a household material, used in soda cans and kitchen foil.

Aluminum’s dramatic fall from luxury to ubiquity highlights a key monetary principle: hardness—the most important quality of a good money.

What Aluminum’s Collapse Reveals About Good Money

Hardness does not mean something that is necessarily tangible or physically hard, like metal. Instead, it means “hard to produce.” By contrast, “easy money” is easy to produce.

The best way to understand hardness is as resistance to debasement—a crucial trait for any good store of value and an essential function of money.

Would you trust your life savings to something anyone can create effortlessly?

Of course not.

That would be like storing your wealth in arcade tokens, airline miles, aluminum—or government fiat currency.

What is desirable in a good money is that someone else cannot make it easily.

Hardness can be measured by the supply growth rate—the amount of new supply created each year divided by the existing stock.

The lower the supply growth rate, the harder the asset.

Historically, gold has been humanity’s hardest asset. Its extremely low and stable supply growth rate has made it the best form of money for thousands of years.

According to the World Gold Council, around 6.8 billion ounces of gold have been mined globally, with roughly 117 million ounces added annually.

That puts gold’s supply growth rate at just 1.7%—a figure that has remained remarkably consistent over time.

In other words, no matter how hard humans try, they can’t increase the gold supply by more than 1-2% each year, a trivial amount.

The chart below illustrates the supply growth rate of various physical commodities.

No other physical commodity comes close to gold’s low supply growth rate and resistance to debasement.

Monetary commodities like gold and silver have relatively low supply growth rates. In contrast, industrial commodities tend to have much higher rates.

A high supply growth rate means new production can significantly impact overall supply—and prices.

For industrial commodities, annual production often exceeds existing stockpiles, resulting in supply growth rates over 100%. That’s because these stockpiles are consistently depleted by ongoing industrial use.

Take copper, for example. According to the International Copper Study Group, annual production is around 21.9 million tonnes, while stockpiles are just 1.4 million tonnes. In other words, yearly copper output is more than 15 times the size of existing reserves.

Because industrial processes consume copper continuously, stockpiles remain low, and new production has an enormous influence on prices.

Here’s the bottom line:

An asset cannot be a reliable store of value if its price is vulnerable to the whims of ever-changing industrial conditions.

That’s why a high supply growth rate disqualifies a commodity from being a good money.

Three key factors can explain gold’s exceptionally low supply growth rate of 1.7%:

• First, gold is indestructible. It doesn’t corrode or decay, which means nearly all the gold ever mined still exists and contributes to today’s stockpile.

• Second, gold has been mined for thousands of years, unlike platinum and palladium, which have only seen a couple of centuries of production.

• Third, industrial processes don’t significantly consume gold, unlike other metals. As a result, most of the mined gold remains in circulation.

These three traits mean gold’s existing stockpiles are massive relative to new annual production.

No one can arbitrarily flood the market with gold, making it a neutral, reliable store of value. This is what gives gold its unmatched monetary properties.

Don’t Confuse Hardness with Scarcity

It’s important to clarify that hardness is not the same as scarcity; They are related concepts but not the same thing.

For instance, platinum and palladium are much scarcer than gold.

Roughly 6.8 billion ounces of gold have been mined throughout history.

By comparison, since platinum’s discovery in 1741, only about 322 million troy ounces have been mined. For palladium, that number is even lower—around 193 million ounces.

There are far fewer ounces of platinum and palladium than gold—so why aren’t they considered better forms of money?

Because despite their scarcity, platinum and palladium are not hard assets. Their annual production is high relative to their existing stockpiles.

Unlike gold, these metals haven’t benefited from millennia of accumulation. And because industrial uses consume a large share of them, new production plays a far bigger role in pricing.

That’s why their supply growth rates—platinum at 178% and palladium at 83%—are so high. These figures underscore their role as industrial, not monetary, metals. It’s no surprise that almost no one uses them as money.

Here’s the key takeaway:

Hardness is the most important trait of a good money. All other monetary characteristics are meaningless if the money is easy for someone to produce.

That’s why, throughout history, the hardest asset has always won. And why gold has always reigned supreme.

The Next Monetary Reset Is Coming—Are You Ready?

Throughout history, the hardest money has always prevailed—and in times of crisis, gold shines.

With global debt soaring, fiat currencies faltering, and trust in central banks eroding, a major monetary reset is no longer a question of if, but when.

I’ve prepared an urgent report breaking down what’s unfolding behind the scenes, how gold is poised to play a pivotal role, and what you need to do right now to protect and grow your wealth.

Click here to download the PDF report on the coming monetary reset.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 21:45

Brazil's Bolsonaro Diagnosed With Early-Stage Skin Cancer Just After Conviction

The defense team for former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is expected to cite his deteriorating health as grounds to request house arrest instead of prison time, following his conviction for attempting to overturn the 2022 election, for which was sentenced by the country's supreme court to a harsh 27-years and three months, just days ago.

Doctors announced Wednesday that the 70-year old, who has been dubbed the "Brazilian Donald Trump", has been diagnosed with early-stage skin cancer in two lesions which were recently removed for testing.

Associated Press: Brazil's former President Jair Bolsonaro, accompanied by his wife Michelle Bolsonaro, departs a hospital where he received medical treatment.

Bolsonaro is currently under house arrest in Brasília, but already he's made two hospital visits since last week's historic ruling convicted him for alleged coup-related activity.

Sunday saw him undergo a procedure for the removal of several skin legions, while Tuesday saw him rushed back again after his son said he experienced vomiting, low blood pressure, and a bout of uncontrollable hiccups. He has since been released.

His just announced cancer diagnosis is said to be by doctors in its early stages, but will ongoing monitoring and follow-up care. CNN has the following details:

According to results from a Sunday procedure to have skin lesions removed, doctors found squamous cell carcinoma, which starts in cells in the middle and outer layers of the skin.

"Two of the lesions tested positive for squamous cell carcinoma, which is neither the kindest nor the most aggressive, but it is still a skin cancer," Bolsonaro’s doctor Claudio Biroloni said, according to CNN Brasil.

There's an appeals process that will play out, and the ex-president's lawyers are expected to push for him being granted continued house arrest during that period.

The justice overseeing the case, Alexandre de Moraes, had imposed an ankle monitor since August - and has accused him of conspiring with a foreign power to interfere in Brazil's internal affairs, due to the relationship with Donald Trump.

Bolsonaro has suffered serious health issues ever since he was stabbed while campaigning in 2018. This resulted in several surgeries, and recurring intestinal issues.

The top court had also ruled last week that he's barred from running for public office until 2060. Likely his political opponents are going suspect that his health saga is but a ploy to avoid serving real prison time - or they'll accuse him of seeking to gain national sympathy.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 21:20

Note: Mortgage rates are from MortgageNewsDaily.com and are for top tier scenarios.

Thursday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, The initial weekly unemployment claims report will be released. The consensus is for initial claims to increase to 240 thousand from 237 thousand last week.

• Also at 8:30 AM, the Philly Fed manufacturing survey for September. The consensus is for a reading of 2.5, up from 0.0.

Newsom Folds, Greenlights Domestic Oil Production In California

Authored by Beige Luciano-Adams via The Epoch Times,

Amid California’s worsening affordability crisis and warnings of a 75-percent price increase at the gas pump, state legislators over the weekend sent a package of bills aimed at tackling energy costs, fuel supply, and pollution to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

Newsom announced the deal with state lawmakers last week, and the two chambers extended their session through Saturday to finalize last-minute negotiations before the Legislature adjourns until January.

“After months of hard work with the Legislature, we have agreed to historic reforms that will save money on your electric bills, stabilize gas supply, and slash toxic air pollution—all while fast-tracking California’s transition to a clean, green job-creating economy,” Newsom said in a statement.

Among them is SB 237, which will clear the way for drilling in the state’s Central Valley, home to the state’s largest oil reserves and by far its greatest producer, after legal battles and regulatory restrictions brought production to a grinding halt and sent refineries packing.

By certifying a Kern County Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that has been tied up in litigation for at least a decade, thus temporarily exempting drilling from environmental review, the bill paves the way for approval of up to 2,000 new well drilling permits annually.

Bipartisan support for the measure comes weeks after state agencies briefed lawmakers on California’s impending crisis as mismatched supply and demand threaten to tank a critical phase in its transition to carbon neutrality.

Newsom in April asked the agencies to work with refiners to confront the gap between his climate goals and the reality that demand for transportation fuels is not decreasing as fast as hoped.

It’s an about-face from Newsom’s hardline stance on decarbonization, catalyzed in part by the departure of two refineries and the threat of infrastructure collapse as pipeline capacity reaches critically low levels, and as the state increasingly relies on imported fuel from foreign nations.

Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta in 2023 sued the state’s biggest oil producers for causing or contributing to “climate change-related harms,” including extreme drought, flooding, and wildfires. The case is ongoing.

“I want to thank the Governor for being willing to listen, and to understand the situation that we have before us. And his courage to act immediately to stabilize fuel prices for all Californians,” Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove, who represents Kern County, said on the Senate floor on Saturday.

“Californians cannot afford $10-a-gallon gas,” Grove, who has long pushed to loosen restrictions on production in her district, said in a statement last week. “It’s time to unleash Kern County producers to meet our state’s energy needs with affordable, locally produced oil for Californians by Californians.”

Course Correction

In the Assembly, many Democrats framed the bill as a painful compromise to stave off economic crisis.

“I’m keenly aware of the damage refinery closures can have on a community,” Assemblymember Lori Wilson said during the floor session. Wilson, a Democrat, represents the city of Benicia, home to a Valero refinery that announced it will close by the end of next year.

A Phillips 66 refinery in Los Angeles also announced in October 2024 that it would close by the end of this year, and six refineries have closed since 2008, two of them converting to renewable diesel. Operators have cited high operating costs and punishing state regulations as reasons for leaving; last year, the state fined Valero $82 million for air pollution violations at its Benicia facility.

“This closure will impact our union workers resulting in the loss of $1.6 billion in employee compensation, distress the finances of local governments that will take years to recover, and cost our community $400 million annually in additional economic activity for our local businesses and nonprofits,” Wilson said of the Valero closure.

While the bill won’t help her local refinery directly, Wilson said increasing domestic production of crude oil and lowering imports will help stabilize the market, create and save jobs, and prevent price spikes caused by international market volatility.

Assemblymember Gregg Hart, a Democrat, lauded the final bill for increasing restrictions on offshore drilling, while streamlining permitting for onshore production.

“Together these measures reflect a balanced approach,” he said. “Offshore, we’re tightening oversight to prevent irreparable harm to our coast; onshore, we’re ending 10 years of CEQA litigation and imposing measures and strong setbacks to allow Kern County to manage oil production more efficiently.”

In an Aug. 20 presentation to lawmakers, state agencies acknowledged that the decline in California’s crude supply relative to demand from in-state refineries is in large part a result of the Kern County CEQA litigation that has stalled well permitting in the state’s fossil fuel mecca.

California has some of the highest concentrations of recoverable oil in the world—and also the most stringent oil and gas regulations in the country. Its carbon-rich, heavy crude is refined into finished products, such as gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, blended into special mixes that adhere to strict environmental standards.

As pipelines carrying Kern County crude to refineries in Northern and Southern California approach critically low levels, the state is aiming to stabilize levels at around 30 percent of overall consumption in order to prevent further closures.

‘Huge Step Backward’

Assemblymembers Alex Lee and Tasha Boerner, both Democrats, were among four “no” votes, calling the bill a “regulatory giveaway to Big Oil,” and a “huge step backward” in the state’s efforts to protect vulnerable communities and workers, respectively.

“Like the dinosaurs that they process into petroleum oil, the fossil fuel industry is a dinosaur. It is dying out, and refineries and facilities are closing not just in California but in Texas and across the world,” Lee said.

He proposed legislators should instead be concerned with “true affordability” and with the workers and communities that will be left to clean up when producers leave as demand inevitably continues to fall.

Democratic Assemblymember Carl DeMaio said he “struggled” with the bill because it doesn’t go far enough to ensure affordable energy supply but represents a “compromise” that tries to balance competing perspectives.

“My hope is we can do better next year,” he said.

Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, also a Democrat, acknowledged the threat of volatility created by mismatched supply and demand, but framed his support as a temporary compromise that meets the moment.

“When the governor first announced his proposal, we didn’t just take it at face value, we pushed back,” Bryan said. “The idea of exempting oil drilling from CEQA was insane to men ... but we recognized the pragmatic approach to looking at this problem and needing to find some sort of balance to manage our decline.”

Democratic Assemblymember David Alvarez acknowledged that the bill represents a “course correction” for Democrats, after years of pushing rapid decarbonization.

“This approach we’ve been taking is not the exact right path, and that’s OK,” he said. “It’s a recognition that the utilization of oil is something that’s still necessary ... and unfortunately for many people in the state like communities I represent, they cannot afford the transition, because they cannot afford to buy a new vehicle that is nonreliant on gasoline—that is a reality.”

For Grove, bipartisan support for the bill was a gratifying culmination of years of work trying to push back against what she characterized as a suffocating policy that put her constituents at risk.

“This issue is very close to my heart,” Grove said, noting that when she was first elected to the State Assembly in 2010, 3,000 new drill permits were issued and average gas prices hovered around $3.12 a gallon. “Jobs were abundant, families were buying their first home or forever home, nonprofits were funded, my district was thriving.”

But in the past three years, she added, fewer than 87 new drill permits were approved.

“As these permits dried up over the years, thousands of my constituents lost great jobs. ... They lost homes, moved away, chased industry to ... other locations,” she said.

Democratic state Sen. Jerry McNerney, meanwhile, stressed the ultimate goal of the compromise: “If we don’t keep gas prices affordable, we will lose public support, and in doing so, we will lose the fight against climate change.”

In a press conference with Grove after the Senate passed AB237, retired Kern County Planning Commissioner Lorelei Oviatt said county leaders were excited that 15 years of work that went into creating the EIR was coming to fruition.

“This is an important step at stabilizing our gas prices and actually engaging in a long-term conversation of this relationship between clean energy—and Kern County is at the center of that as well—clean energy and demand for fossil fuels,” Oviatt said.

Grove noted the EIR assures mitigations that will result in a zero net carbon increase, “so whatever we put in to pull the oil out, there is no increase in our carbon output,” and that Kern County not only produces 80 percent of the state’s oil and gas but also nearly 60 percent of its wind and solar, and more than 80 percent of its battery storage.

“We are the solution, not the problem,” she said of Kern County.

Other bills in the package aim to increase climate credits on consumer utility bills, expand California’s regional power grid, and improve utility wildfire oversight, as well as expand the state’s Cap-and-Trade program to 2045 and increase air pollution monitoring.

In a statement on Sept. 10, environmental justice and health organizations criticized the governor and legislative leadership for watering down protections in amended versions of the bills.

“The Legislature is also set to approve massive CEQA exemptions for oil extraction in Kern County based on the oil industry’s word but with no guarantee that this will reduce gas prices or ensure stable fuel supply,” the organizations said.

“Once again, these bills continue to make [environmental justice] communities into sacrifice zones for the benefit of industry profit. We are disappointed by the status of these bills and demand that the Legislature and Governor Newsom do more to protect the most vulnerable communities in California.”

Oviatt said the issue would require stakeholders to continue to have “deep, thoughtful conversations,” but added, “first, the consumers need to know that they can get to work and they can pay their electric bills without having to remortgage the house.”

Newsom, who has already approved the package, has until Oct. 13 to sign the bills into law.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 19:15

Experts Urge Government Ban On Solar Geoengineering

Authored by T.J. Muscaro via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The United States should lead an international effort to prohibit the use of solar geoengineering, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Roger Pielke Jr., told members of Congress on Sept. 16.

Wind turbines are silhouetted against the rising sun near Spearville, Kan., on Jan. 13, 2021. Charlie Riedel/AP Photo

Pielke testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Delivering Government Efficiency during a hearing on weather manipulation, specifically cloud-seeding and geoengineering.

While geoengineering is a broad category that covers processes to intentionally cool the Earth’s temperature—which could even include painting buildings a certain way—the subset known as solar geoengineering or solar radiation modification drew Pielke’s concern.

Those modification techniques involve the dispensing of reflective elements such as sulfur dioxide into layers of the atmosphere to prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the Earth’s surface.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), there is limited understanding of these techniques, which could have an effect on the ozone layer, crop yields, rain, snowfall, and even respiratory health.

Described as an expert in climate, science, and technology policy—as well as the politicization of science and government science advice—Pielke was one of more than 500 scientists and academics from around the world calling for an international non-use agreement for solar geoengineering.

He argued that no outdoor experimentation of solar geoengineering should be allowed and that governments should work to monitor the atmosphere to track and enforce that ban.

“We have one Earth, and experimenting on it carries considerable risks,” he said in his opening remarks. “I have likened geoengineering to risky gain-of-function research on viruses with uncertain benefits and catastrophic risks.”

Pielke was joined by Christopher Martz, a meteorologist and policy analyst at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, who also saw a need for prohibition.

“Solar geoengineering should be prohibited, given the uncertainties about climate change itself, as well as the uncertainties that geoengineering could have on both the environment and life on Earth,” Martz said in his opening statement.

Martz went on to say that while he believes the planet got warmer over the past 100 years, he still saw uncertainty in how much of an impact humanity has truly had on that.

On top of that, he said there has been no distinction made between humanity’s specific contributions to such change in climate and nature’s own doing, such as through volcanic eruptions and deep-sea vents on the ocean floor.

He later pointed out how quickly people blamed weather modification for disasters such as Hurricane Helene and the Texas floods, despite the lack of evidence, and he argued that any geoengineering used to cool the Earth could face blame for making any subsequent winter even colder.

“These uncertainties need to be resolved in the peer-reviewed literature before world governments try to, much less, consider intentionally altering the radiation balance with novel technologies that have not been tested,” he said in his opening statement.

However, the third expert witness called to testify disagreed with them.

Michael MacCracken has served as the chief scientist for climate-related programs at the Climate Institute on a pro bono basis since his retirement in 2002.

He is on the steering committee of the Healthy Planet Action Coalition, which he said favors climate intervention or geoengineering.

He said that it was evident that changes in the climate seen in the past century were directly caused by humans, and that climate intervention could be examined by studying any cooling that has already occurred naturally.

“Volcanic eruptions put sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said in his opening statement. “It turns to sulfate. It reflects maybe 1 percent of solar radiation. It’s not like it blanks out the sun in any sense, and that can sort of exert a cooling influence.”

MacCracken cited the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which he said caused a momentary climate cooling when the sulfur was mixed in the atmosphere, but it was then naturally removed, and the climate returned to normal.

“Nature has really done the experiments on this, on whether these approaches will work,” MacCracken said.

“That’s not something that science really has to go back and do.

“What we have to do is see if the tailoring and the optimizing ... will work. Will it be beneficial or not? So there are a host of questions for research to consider.”

The subcommittee’s chairwoman, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), an outspoken opponent to any form of weather modification, called out one company in California called Make Sunsets, which has already decided to start geoengineering on its own by launching balloons that release reflective particles into the atmosphere.

According to the company’s FAQ page, the particles can stay in the atmosphere for between six months and three years, depending on the altitude at which they are released.

The company claimed that its work was legal, falling under the Weather Modification Act of 1976.

Under an FAQ that stated, “I would like you to stop doing this,” it replied with the following: “And we would like an equitable future with breathable air and no wet bulb events for generations to come. Convince us there’s a more feasible way to buy us the time to get there, and we‘ll stop. We’ll happily debate anyone on this, just confirm an audience of at least 200 people, and we'll find the time to try and convince you.”

Both Martz and Pielke denounced the company’s practice and extreme view of the climate.

Ranking member Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.) then turned to Greene and said: “I do believe we have actually discovered the purpose of the EPA.

“Literally, this is why the EPA exists. It is to regulate, study, and understand how modifications to the environment impact human health and the environment, and in fact, that is the primary purpose of the Science Advisory Committee for the EPA.”

Standbury and the other Democratic subcommittee members used a significant portion of their speaking time to criticize the Trump administration for its cuts to the EPA, investments in climate science, and departure from international climate agreements.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 18:25

Israel Arming, Bankrolling Druze Fighters In Southern Syria

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

With tensions continuing to simmer in Syria’s Suwayda Governorate, senior Druze commanders are reporting that the Israeli government has been arming and financing Druze militias that are seeking a large amount of autonomy over the area.

Suwayda is the historic population center of the Druze minority, and back in July there was a substantial massacre of Druze civilians amid a military crackdown. The Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) has vowed to see the entire country under central government control, but after the massacre a lot of the Druze see some measure of autonomy as essential.

Getty Images

Though Israel is engaged in talks with the HTS, they also appear to be keen on undermining their stability, as they are actively invading southwestern Syria, and Suwayda is proximal to that area.

Some 3,000 Druze militia fighters are estimated to be active in the area, and now many are receiving arms and salaries from the Israelis.

The HTS isn’t clear about how they intend to centralize control in the area, but it's one of several regions they are still trying to enhance their power in, generally those with large amount of religious or ethnic minorities.

Last month, the HTS announced that they were postponing all elections in Suwayda, which will likely limit Druze representation in parliament.

The US and Jordan, which both generally support the idea of Syria remaining contiguous and without substantial autonomy anywhere, reported Tuesday that they have agreed to a "roadmap" on advancing the situation in Suwayda.

They didn’t say what that entailed, but US envoy Tom Barrack offered his typical glowing endorsement of the idea as good for the HTS and therefore good for "all Syrians."

For many months, the new hardline Sunni regime in Damascus has been engaged in overt ethno-religious cleansing...

SYRIA: thousands of Druze university students are forced to flee Damascus for the Druze-dominated region of Sweida.

In the past weeks, over 700 Druze were massacred.

It’s heartbreaking to see these young Druze abandon their studies due to Islamist threats.

Will Western… pic.twitter.com/2gASmfPo3l

— Dr. Maalouf ‏ (@realMaalouf) May 8, 2025

The Syrian Army, for its part, has been withdrawing heavy weapons from Suwayda. Those weapons were largely deployed in the governorate during the July massacre, and while such redeployments may reduce tensions, it does not appear they have been withdrawing the ground troops they deployed to the area.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 17:40

Graham Threatens 'Consequences' On Hungary & Slovakia Over Russian Energy Purchases

United States Senator Lindsey Graham has blasted Hungary and Slovakia over their ongoing purchases of Russian energy, warning they'll face "consequences" if they don't end their reliance.

The anti-Russia hawk from South Carolina said on social media that President Trump was "right to demand that Europe stop buying Russian oil." He admitted that while most of Europe has done so, it is "now virtually down to Hungary and Slovakia."

"I hope and expect them to step up to the plate soon to help us end this bloodbath," he said. "If not, consequences should and will follow."

President Trump had last week urged all NATO countries to "stop buying oil from Russia" - saying he'll only slap additional sanctions on Moscow once they had all done so.

As a reminder, Trump wrote Social Saturday morning, "I am ready to do major Sanctions on Russia when all NATO Nations have agreed, and started, to do the same thing, and when all NATO Nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA."

He described his words as a letter to America's allies and to the world: "As you know, NATO’S commitment to WIN has been far less than 100%, and the purchase of Russian Oil, by some, has been shocking," he continued.

"China has a strong control, and even grip, over Russia, and these powerful Tariffs will break that grip," Trump's 'letter' continued. He then made his position clear that tariffs on China would "be of great help in ENDING this deadly, but RIDICULOUS, WAR."

Prior to February 2022 and the start of the current war, the European Union as a whole imported 45% of its natural gas from Russia. Additionally 27% of crude imports were sourced to Russia in pre-war times.

China and India are of course at this moment the two biggest importers of Russian oil, in that order, but what's less well known is that NATO member Turkey is the third largest. Ironically, Turkey maintains the second largest military in NATO, next to the United States.

.@SecScottBessent: "We are prepared to increase pressure on Russia, but we need our European partners to follow us... If the U.S. and the EU can come in, do more sanctions, secondary tariffs on the countries that buy Russian oil, the Russian economy will be in full collapse." pic.twitter.com/fNfGiofCsr

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) September 7, 2025

It continues, alongside Orban's Hungary and Fico's Slovakia, to be a thorn in the side of 'NATO unity' regarding Russian energy imports. 

But strangely Graham said nothing of Turkey in his comments aimed squarely at Hungary and Slovakia.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 16:40

The post Why the Bursting of the AI Bubble Would Be Good for the Economy appeared first on CEPR.

Jerome Powell's Fed Enters "Nightmare Territory"

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

By now you already know the Federal Reserve cut its benchmark interest rate by a quarter point to 4.00–4.25% in an 11–1 vote today, citing rising risks to the labor market as their excuse for doing so.

While newly appointed Governor Stephen Miran pushed for a deeper cut, most policymakers backed the smaller move, with the Fed signaling two more reductions are likely before year-end.

Chair Jerome Powell framed the decision as “risk management,” noting slower job growth and persistent inflation, though he rejected calls for a half-point cut.

So, what did the cut and the ensuing press conference tell me that you’re not going to hear on CNBC? This cut marks the beginning of what I believe is going to be “nightmare territory” for the Fed.

First, while many were quick to celebrate “less dissent” at the Fed, the board’s outlook was still all over the place. But it’s more than just a mixed bag of good-natured disagreements. The narrative is that Trump’s “ringer” at the Fed wants much larger cuts than anybody else, raising the risk that the market could see the Fed losing what little “independence” it is perceived to still have.

The market seeing the wide range of Fed opinions not as healthy disagreement, but as a loss of confidence, would be serious shit. Blurring these lines is like letting the inflation “genie” out of the bottle: once it happens, it can be impossible to walk back without severe consequences.

As an investor, I’ve been preparing for this, but the distortions it could create—and the consequences for everyday Americans, especially runaway inflation—could be catastrophic.

Powell’s press conference, which just concluded, offered nothing of substance whatsoever. Not even a hint of a tangible solution or clear path forward. Instead, it was an hour of doublespeak, vague qualifiers, and hedging, which basically summed up to this: “We cut today because the pressure to do so was overwhelming, and because the labor market gave us cover. But we really have no idea how we’re going to balance our two objectives—price stability and maximum employment—going forward.”

The only thing the conference made clear is that we were right to assume the Fed is going to swing back and forth between its mandates for cover, working the gas and the brake at the same time, whenever and however it suits them. Either way, it doesn’t matter — whichever mandate it chooses to address, the outcome is the same: more inflation.

If the Fed prioritizes the labor market, it’ll cut rapidly, and inflation—which is still nowhere near the Fed’s 2% target—will continue to run rampant. If it tries to be a hero and fight inflation, it risks triggering both an economic and an inflationary depression across markets.

Nothing today changes the view I’ve had. The Fed is cutting rates, but not quickly enough. As I’ve said before, the gears of the economy are already stuck and will soon start moving in reverse. The stock market will then go through sharp deleveraging and a downturn, forcing the Fed to cut faster—a possibility Powell himself alluded to today when talking about the pace of cuts.

After that, the bond market will keep pushing yields higher at the long end of the curve, signaling that both the Fed and the country have lost credibility and creditworthiness. At that point, the Fed will start buying bonds, which will push the inflation machine into overdrive and keep us on the path toward the monetary reset I’ve been warning about for years.

I was appalled when Janet Yellen became Treasury Secretary after serving as Fed Chair. I couldn’t believe that after her tenure at the Fed she didn’t just retire and watch the system self destruct while trying to find the worm at the bottom of a tequila bottle somewhere on a Mexican beach. And somehow, despite the damage she’s done as Treasury Secretary, the economy hasn’t yet imploded and the Fed hasn’t yet lost all credibility.

Now, whenever it does happen, I think Powell will wind up taking the blame for both—especially if you ask President Trump. I can’t help but think Powell is counting down the days until he’s relieved of his duties. He’s in an extremely unenviable position as the Fed enters this “nightmare territory” where it simply will not be able to maintain balance between its two mandates. And even if he slips out before everything collapses, it’ll be “Powell’s Fed” that will be left to face the music and take the blame shortly after.

Nothing about today’s Fed action changes my outlook. For my latest thoughts on how I see the next 12 months playing out for the macro economy, listen to this interview—and for how I’m positioning myself, read this piece I published just hours ago.

Changing My Strategy Heading Into 2026

Vaya con Dios, my kind subscribers.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 15:50

Hate Crime Charge After Subway Rider Called "White Boy", Then Brutally Attacked On L Train

A young woman is facing hate crime charges after allegedly assaulting a fellow passenger in a violent, unprovoked attack on a Manhattan subway train, according to the NY Post.

The incident unfolded around 2:10 a.m. Sunday aboard a southbound L train at the 1st Avenue and East 14th Street station. Authorities said Genesis Gittens — who had just celebrated her 20th birthday on Monday — was yelling when a 28-year-old man sitting nearby glanced in her direction.

That look reportedly sent Gittens into a fury. She began striking the rider in the face multiple times while hurling slurs, shouting, “White boy” and “cracker,” according to a criminal complaint. The repeated punches left the victim with a bloody nose, though he declined medical treatment, police said.

The NY Post writes that officers arrested Gittens less than an hour later. She was charged with third-degree assault as a hate crime, the complaint states. During her arraignment, she pleaded not guilty and was released, court records show.

The L train incident was not the only subway violence reported that day. Around 9 a.m. Sunday, police said a man believed to be homeless attacked a 35-year-old MTA cleaner from behind inside the 34th Street–Hudson Yards No. 7 station.

The assailant, who wore all gray and carried a blue blanket, allegedly punched the worker in the back of the head several times. After the victim fell, the attacker — who was barefoot — kicked him repeatedly, cops and sources said.

The suspect fled and remained at large as of Monday. Like the earlier victim, the cleaner refused medical attention at the scene.

* * *

Click pic and snag some beef-ore the sale ends (sorry). 

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 15:30

Fed Cuts Rates By 25bps; Powell 'Bends The Knee', Signals Dovish Path Ahead

Tl;dr: Nine months after it last adjusted rates, The Fed finally bent the knee this afternoon and cut rates by 25bps (as fully priced in by the market).

Only once since it started publishing its target rate in the 1970s had The Fed waited longer. That was 2001-2002 when, unlike now, it was a bear-market low, consumer spending was weak, and inflation was below target.

The Dot-Plot suggests The Fed members are also shifting in a dovish direction (narrowing the gap with the market) with 50bps more now set for 2025.

There was only one dissenter, newly appointed Stephen Miran who wanted a 50bps cut.

So, to clarify: The Fed is cutting rates, and projecting more rate cuts, at the same time as upgrading its growth forecast and nudging up its inflation outlook too.

WTF!!

*  *  *

Since The Fed's last meeting (July 30th), a great deal of catalyzing events have occurred - from massive downward revisions to the so-called 'strong' labor market to a continued lack of (hyper) inflationary pressure from tariffs; and from a decline in geopolitical uncertainty and trade policy uncertainty offset by a much-decried by MSM rise in fears over Fed 'independence'.

The economic data has pumped and dumped in the ensuing weeks...

Source: Bloomberg

But we do note that 'inflation' has surprised to the upside since the last FOMC (while the labor market has dramatically surprised to the downside)...

Source: Bloomberg

Gold has been a dramatic outperformer during the interim period with some weakness in the dollar and crude oil prices (Israel-Iran tensions eased) plunging most. Bonds and stocks are up since the last FOMC meeting...

Source: Bloomberg

Rate-cut odds dipped after the last FOMC meeting only to surge on two weak payrolls prints, pricing in fully a 25bps today (and high likelihood of another cut in each of the remaining FOMC meetings this year)...

Source: Bloomberg

Expectations for cuts in 2025 have risen notably since the last FOMC meeting (from ~2 cuts to ~3 cuts) while 2026 expectations are only very modestly more dovish)...

Source: Bloomberg

And before we get the headlines, bear in mind that the market is dramatically more dovish than the current (old) dots from The Fed. Today we get a refresh that will likely see the median dots decline (dovishly)...

Source: Bloomberg

As we noted earlier, today's meeting has the potential to be explosive with multiple dissents (both hawkish and dovish).

So What Happened...?

RATES:

• Cuts key overnight interest rate by 25bps to 4.00-4.25% range

• Fed projections show additional 50bps of cuts by year end, another 25 bps of cuts in each of the next two years

• Fed says it is attentive to both sides of dual mandate

VOTE SPLIT:

• New governor Miran dissented on policy decision, favoring 50bps cut

LABOUR MARKET:

• Says downside risks to employment have risen

• Job gains have slowed, unemployment has edged up but remains low

INFLATION:

• Inflation has moved up and remains 'somewhat elevated'

ECONOMY:

• Economic growth moderated over first half of this year BALANCE SHEET:

• Fed maintains current pace of balance sheet drawdown

SUMMARY ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS:

• GDP forecasts raised for 2025, 2026 and 2027

• Unemployment rate forecast for 2025 unch, lowered for 2026 and 2027

• PCE forecast for 2025 unch, raised for 2026, unch for 2027

• Core PCE forecast for 2025 unch, raised for 2026 and unch for 2027

The new projections show inflation finally returning to the 2% target in 2028. That would mark seven straight years of inflation surpassing the target! 

Still, that’s less than the nine straight years of under-shooting from 2012 through 2020.

DOTS:

The dots for 2025 were massively shifted lower with one member calling for 5 cuts in 2025. 7 of the 19 members see no more rate-cuts this year...

• 9 of 19 see 2 more cuts 

• 2 of 19 see 1 more cuts

• 6 of 19 see no more cuts

• 1 sees 1 rate hike, and drumroll...

• 1 sees 5 cuts (this is Stephen Miran)

Fed Funds rate forecast cut for 2025 from 3.9% to 3.6% or another 2 rate cuts.

So the median forecast for next year pencils in just one more rate cut, after the two further moves this year. Not a lot there.

Bloomberg's Ira Jersey notes that while the skew of the Dot-plot remains for slower cuts this year, the median year-end 2026 dot not only moved lower, but there are now five members who see rates below 3%.

And then another cut in 2027 to 3.1%

That would mean 125 basis points of cutting from September 2025 until the end of 2027. That’s way, way short of the 300 basis points Trump has wanted for, like, now.

So, to clarify:

The Fed is cutting rates, and projecting more rate cuts, at the same time as upgrading its growth forecast and nudging up its inflation outlook too.

WTF!

Read the full redline below:

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 15:30

Game-Changer? Are Meta And Zuckerberg Ready To Fight For Free Speech

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

I created a Facebook account recently.

No one was more surprised than myself.

From my book, “The Indispensable Right,” to my past columns, I have been one of the most vocal critics of Facebook and Meta regarding their free speech policies.

From their expansive censorship record to their failure to disclose details on their coordination with the federal government, many in the free speech community saw Meta as the embodiment of the anti-free speech movement growing around the world.

Then something happened. Elon Musk happened.

He bought Twitter and dismantled its massive censorship operation. He then turned over what became known as the Twitter Files.

Those files confirmed extensive coordination by the government with academia and social media companies to censor speech, including core political speech.

Eventually, Facebook released its files, and founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized for the censorship that had occurred under the prior system, pledging to restore free speech protections. In doing so, Meta adopted some of the changes Musk made at the newly named X.

Meta can be a gamechanger for free speech

For many, the Meta culpa seemed strained and opportunistic. However, I had the opportunity to have in-depth discussions with Chief Global Affairs Officer Joel Kaplan about these plans. I was impressed and I wrote that, despite the bad blood with the company, the free speech community should give Meta a chance to prove that it was serious about restoring free speech protections.

As I stated in my column, we need Meta. Musk changed the trajectory of the fight for free speech, but the difference between the two companies is impossible to ignore. X reports that it has roughly 600 million users. Facebook remains the largest social media company, with more than 3 billion users.

For free speech defenders, it is the difference between England’s entry into World War II and the United States’ entry. Musk slowed the progress of the anti-free speech movement. Zuckerberg could reverse the direction.

Recently, Kaplan and I reviewed the progress at Meta. He was remarkably transparent and candid about their efforts, and what I learned was heartening.

The chief global affairs officer stated that “we are allowing more speech,” but the company has not seen an explosion of hate speech as a result of greater tolerance for opposing views.

He admitted that “content was being taken down that should not have been taken down. We reduced over-enforcement.”

“We reduced the number of false positives by more than 50% without an explosion of prevalence,” Kaplan said.

“We track how many times our classifiers ‘get it wrong’ through labeling and human review.”

What he found was that “we had this blunt approach to reduce civic content in their feeds on Facebook and Instagram. We removed those and started treating political content like other content. We fundamentally changed how we treat content.”

Facebook is relying more on community notes rather than removal of postings, much like X. The company now has a massive number of community note contributors and a system designed to counter the most biased or strident posters.

The biggest change has resulted from modifying the company’s classifiers, the automated systems used to enforce policies. Meta found that these classifiers were too broad, resulting in excessive content being taken down. It turned off low-precision classifiers, except for illegal and high-severity areas ‒ like terrorism, child sexual exploitation, drugs, fraud and scams.

At the same time, Meta has implemented greater monitoring to track “false positives.” It was able to reduce the number of false positives by more than half without any significant increase in violating content. Now, in its integrity report for the second quarter, Meta shows that it has achieved an even more impressive mark in reducing over-enforcement, cutting enforcement mistakes in the United States by more than 75% every week.

The experience at Meta seems to confirm what some of us have long argued. Yielding to those who demand censorship only produces an insatiable appetite for more speech curtailment. It fuels a class of speech phobes, who spend more time trying to silence others than speaking their own voices.

Meta experienced this same snowballing of censorship. Notably, when the company moved to restore greater free speech protection, it did not experience a comparative rise in violative speech.

European Union poses biggest challenge to free speech

The greatest challenge, however, still lies ahead for the company. The European Union remains the greatest threat to free speech facing Americans. After Musk purchased X with a pledge to restore free speech, figures like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demanded that the EU use its infamous Digital Services Act to force X to censor Americans.

The EU has threatened Musk with confiscatory fines that could surpass $1 billion, according to The New York Times.

Meta is clearly trying to find an accommodation with the EU, which may still object to its move to rely on community notes rather than direct censorship. The EU could also object to the reduction of broad classifiers in allowing a greater scope of discussion and dissent.

However, with the Trump administration warning the EU about its efforts to censor Americans, Meta could help recreate a formidable alliance for free speech. For the first time, the free speech community might have a coalition of government and corporate allies that could stand up to the EU.

Hopefully, Meta will expand its notification to citizens in EU countries that they are being denied access to information due to “geoblocking” pursuant to EU censorship regulations. With a united front in the United States for free speech, we can serve as a bastion for those who value this human right.

That is why I have created a Facebook account (jonathanturleyUSA). No doubt, it was the moment that Zuckerberg had long dreamed of.

However, it’s possible that he truly wants to restore free speech in social media. What is clear is that he is already drawing the ire of the anti-free speech movement, which previously unleashed an unrelenting campaign against Musk and his businesses.

The free speech community needs to support Meta. That does not mean that we are chumps. We have often found false friends in both government and corporations.

If Meta stays on this course, we could finally have a coalition of the willing to fight for free speech on a global scale.

Call it a leap of faith in Facebook with our eyes wide open.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 15:10

Wall Street Reacts To Powell's "Risk-Management" Rate Cut

As Powell begins his presser, Wall Street's kneejerk comments start coming in to what the Fed Chair just characterized as a "risk management" rate cut... similar to the rate cut he announced exactly one year ago, only that one was 50bps not 25bps (wonder why).

As expected, Powell is getting a hard time from reporters who have spotted inconsistencies in the decision and rationale compared to the forecasts. Here, the Fed has cut rates and has signaled that in all probability will cut twice more this year. Yet against that it has economic growth speeding up, the jobless rate coming down and inflation back to (just above) target at the very end of the forecast horizon. In particular, he is being pushed on why the Fed has switched over to the jobs part of the mandate. Indeed even in Powell’s own comments, it doesn’t really come across: “Right now, the situation we're in is that we see, we see inflation, we continue to expect it to move up maybe not as high as we would have expected it to move up a few months ago.“

And while Powell is scrambling to preserve some credibility (especially since exactly one year ago he cut 50bps when the economy was much stronger), here is a snapshot of some of the first comments hitting the tape: 

Ali Jaffery, CIBC Capital Markets

Peering through the dot plot, there’s more division than today’s rate-cut vote suggests. The FOMC is likely divided on its views on the US economy, with some favoring faster easing on risks to the job market (and perhaps other motivations as well), but others are clearly worried about managing through a stagflationary outlook, which is why the overall pace of rate cuts is still far from aggressive. Chair Powell has a tough act to follow in trying to speak on behalf of the committee.

Seema Shah, chief global strategist, Principal Asset Management:

Next year’s dot plot is a mosaic of different perspectives and is an accurate reflection of a confusing economic outlook, muddied by labor supply shifts, data measurement concerns, and government policy upheaval and uncertainty. Overall, though, today’s measured 25 basis point cut allows the Fed to get ahead of a slowdown without overreacting to early signs of strain.

Ira Jersey, Bloomberg Intelligence

In the press conference, will Powell push against the relatively dovish tone? The last few meetings, the opening remarks have been quite neutral, as we showed in our NLP model earlier in this blog. It seems likely he’s at least a tad more dovish, and if not that could be somewhat surprising to the market... The skew of the Dot plot remains for slower cuts this year, but the median year-end 2026 dot not only moved lower, but there are now five members who see rates below 3%.  We had thought the median would be 3.125%, which would have required just one more member at 3.125% to get there. Overall, we think this is a relatively dovish statement with the SEP.

Gregory Faranello, head of US rates strategy for AmeriVet Securities 

The tone overall favors growth concerns right now as the Fed is showing rates still coming despite inflation remaining above the 2% target. The lack of more dissents shows more unity around the pathway to more neutral rates. Overall, a steadfast, methodical pathway down to neutral.

Bob Michele, JPMorgan Asset Management Head of Global Fixed Income

Only one dissent was surprising and it shows the Fed “locked arms” to reduce policy from what was surprisingly restrictive to them 

Anna Wong, Bloomberg Economics

The widely anticipated 25-bp cut showed divisions on the committee. While the median participant expects two more 25-bp cuts this year, almost half of the FOMC expects just one or no more cuts this year. The policy statement and updated Summary of Economic Projections (SEP) display several other interesting contradictions. The policy statement added language to flag increasing downside employment risks, while acknowledging that inflation has moved up. In contrast, officials marked up their growth estimate this year, and lowered the unemployment rate estimates in the SEP forecast horizon.

Democratic Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, the ranking member of the Budget Committee,

The Fed isn’t cutting rates because the economy is strong; it’s cutting them because Donald Trump is recklessly sabotaging it. Inflation is climbing, the job market is shrinking and every sign points to stagflation.

Jack McIntyre, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global: 

In addition to the political jabs aimed at them, the Fed is in a tough spot. They expect stagflation, or higher inflation and a weaker labor market. That is not a great environment for financial assets. One could call the Fed’s move a risk management-style rate cut. It shows the Fed is putting more emphasis on the softening in the labor market as they trimmed rates while forecasting more cuts in 2025.

Scott Ladner, Horizon Investments 

The initial reaction in stocks was a clear ‘run it hot’ reaction with smalls and cyclicals screaming vs Nasdaq selling off, but this reaction did not reach across to other markets. You would have expected a steeper yield curve with longer rates going higher + commodities / coins rallying - and you saw the opposite of this in the rates & commodity space. This cross asset divergence gives some credence to the idea that the equity market reaction right now has more to do with positioning than reading much into the ‘macro implications’ of the Fed result.

Olu Sonola, head of US economic research at Fitch Ratings:

This is lift-off, and the Fed is now all-in on supporting the labor market, signaling a decisively aggressive cutting cycle in 2025. The message is clear: growth and employment are the priority, even if that means tolerating higher inflation in the near term.

Dario Perkins, TS Lombard

Make no mistake, this is a central bank that is suddenly laser-focused on the employment side of its mandate... and more worried that the economy is about to stall.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 14:57

Watch Live: Will Fed Chair Powell Push Back Against The Dovish Dots?

Having delivered the 25bps rate-cut that President Trump had been hoping for, Fed Chair Powell is now facing the gauntlet of a press conference with one governor who has been fired (or not) and another member fresh from The White House. 

Will Powell push back against the relatively dovish tone?

Aside from the drama, the big question is - will Powell offer a more dovish outlook (to match the market's expectation and the new dot plot) or will he course-correct once again (and crush the market's dovish dreams).

As a reminder, Chair Powell's tone shifted between the July FOMC and Jackson Hole and given the demise of the labor market since then, we see no reason for his tone to shift back.

With the conflict between inflation risks on the upside and employment risks on the downside, we expect Chair Powell to reinforce that policy is not on a preset course and is data dependent.

But we also expect he will point to a new course, of gradual, cautious, data-dependent policy easing.

The lowest dot has the “terminal” rate, or where the Fed stops cutting, at 2.4% in 2027, corresponding to 175 basis points more in easing from where we are now. Or 200 including today’s cut. That’s still shy of Trump’s 300.

So, to clarify:

The Fed is cutting rates, and projecting more rate cuts, at the same time as upgrading its growth forecast and nudging up its inflation outlook too.

Good luck explaining that Jay!

Watch Fed Chair Powell thread the needle live here (due to start at 1430ET):

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 14:25

Statement here.

Fed Chair Powell press conference video here or on YouTube here, starting at 2:30 PM ET.

Here are the projections.  
Since the last projections were released, economic growth, the unemployment rate and inflation all have been close to expectations.
The BEA's estimate for first half 2025 GDP showed real growth at 1.4% annualized. Most estimates for Q3 GDP are around 2%.  That would put the real growth for the first three quarters at 1.6% annualized - above the top of end of the June projections.  The FOMC revised up Q4 2025 and Q4 2026 GDP growth slightly.
GDP projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Change in Real GDP1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20251.4 to 1.71.7 to 2.11.8 to 2.0Jun 20251.2 to 1.51.5 to 1.81.7 to 2.0 1 Projections of change in real GDP and inflation are from the fourth quarter of the previous year to the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

The unemployment rate was at 4.3% in August.  The unemployment rate will likely increase further this year.  This was unrevised.
Unemployment projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Unemployment Rate2 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20254.4 to 4.54.4 to 4.54.2 to 4.4Jun 20254.4 to 4.54.3 to 4.64.2 to 4.6 2 Projections for the unemployment rate are for the average civilian unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of the year indicated.

As of July 2025, PCE inflation increased 2.6% year-over-year (YoY), unchanged from 2.6% YoY in June. There will likely be some further increases in the 2nd half of 2025, and the FOMC narrowed the range.
Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, PCE Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20252.9 to 3.02.4-2.72.0 to 2.2Jun 20252.8 to 3.22.3-2.62.0 to 2.2
PCE core inflation increased 2.9% YoY in July, up from 2.8% YoY in June.  There will likely be further increase in core PCE inflation and the FOMC narrowed the range.
Core Inflation projections of Federal Reserve Governors and Reserve Bank presidents, Core Inflation1 Projection Date202520262027 Sept 20253.0 to 3.22.5-2.72.0 to 2.2Jun 20252.9 to 3.42.3-2.62.0 to 2.2

Fed Chair Powell press conference video here or on YouTube here, starting at 2:30 PM ET.

FOMC Statement:

Recent indicators suggest that growth of economic activity moderated in the first half of the year. Job gains have slowed, and the unemployment rate has edged up but remains low. Inflation has moved up and remains somewhat elevated.

The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated. The Committee is attentive to the risks to both sides of its dual mandate and judges that downside risks to employment have risen.

In support of its goals and in light of the shift in the balance of risks, the Committee decided to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/4 percentage point to 4 to 4‑1/4 percent. In considering additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate, the Committee will carefully assess incoming data, the evolving outlook, and the balance of risks. The Committee will continue reducing its holdings of Treasury securities and agency debt and agency mortgage‑backed securities. The Committee is strongly committed to supporting maximum employment and returning inflation to its 2 percent objective.

In assessing the appropriate stance of monetary policy, the Committee will continue to monitor the implications of incoming information for the economic outlook. The Committee would be prepared to adjust the stance of monetary policy as appropriate if risks emerge that could impede the attainment of the Committee's goals. The Committee's assessments will take into account a wide range of information, including readings on labor market conditions, inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and financial and international developments.

Voting for the monetary policy action were Jerome H. Powell, Chair; John C. Williams, Vice Chair; Michael S. Barr; Michelle W. Bowman; Susan M. Collins; Lisa D. Cook; Austan D. Goolsbee; Philip N. Jefferson; Alberto G. Musalem; Jeffrey R. Schmid; and Christopher J. Waller. Voting against this action was Stephen I. Miran, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point at this meeting.
emphasis added

US Regulators Investigate Tesla Door Handles After Complaints Of Entrapment

In what could be a gentle reminder to Elon Musk that President Trump is still the boss, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has opened an investigation into Tesla’s electric door handles, focusing on 2021 Model Y vehicles, according to Bloomberg.

Regulators say they are examining whether doors become inoperative after low-voltage battery failures, leaving occupants unable to get in or out.

“This investigation will also assess the approach used by Tesla to supply power to the door locks and the reliability of the applicable power supplies,” NHTSA said. The agency noted that every Tesla sold in the US uses electrically powered doors.

Bloomberg recently reported more than 140 complaints since 2018 about Tesla doors getting stuck or failing, including cases where parents could not retrieve children from the back seat. NHTSA cited nine “failure reports,” seven of which matched Bloomberg’s findings. “Entrapment in a vehicle is particularly concerning in emergency situations, such as when children are entrapped in a hot vehicle,” the agency said.

Bloomberg writes that owners told regulators they sometimes broke windows to reach trapped passengers. “No one should have to resort to breaking the windows to get into their own car when their child or pet is trapped inside because the door handles fail to work,” said Rosemary Shahan, president of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety.

Tesla has not commented on the probe. Chair Robyn Denholm, asked last week about Bloomberg’s investigation, said only that the board “takes seriously” any safety incidents.

Safety advocates argue that Tesla’s manual release latches are difficult to find in emergencies. Michael Brooks of the Center for Auto Safety said: “The fact that manual release locations are noted in the owner’s manual is not sufficient to advise passengers or ride-share occupants, who do not have a chance to read the manual when a fire or other emergency circumstance is in progress.”

China and Europe have also increased scrutiny of electric and flush door-handle designs, warning they can complicate rescue efforts. NHTSA said it will “continue to monitor any reports of entrapment involving opening doors from inside of the vehicle” and will “take further action as needed.”

The door-handle probe adds to multiple US investigations into Tesla, including ongoing reviews of Autopilot and Full Self-Driving safety. There have been few, if any, updates on legacy probes of Musk's company since President Trump has been in office.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 13:40

EU Proposes Freezing Israel Trade Pact As Smotrich Declares Gaza 'Real Estate Bonanza'

On Wednesday the European Commission presented a proposal for new tariffs and sanctions aimed at pressuring Israel to quickly end its military operations in Gaza, in addition to sanctions measures on two Israeli ministers known for their fiery anti-Palestinian rhetoric.

"The horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop," EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said after presenting the proposal to the EU Council. "There needs to be an immediate ceasefire, unrestrained access for all humanitarian aid, and the release of all hostages held by Hamas."

The measures would if implemented constitute a major, historic blow to EU-Israel relations. The commission appears to be largely responding to the new Gaza City offensive, confirmed to be in full swing this week, and the major United Nations investigation just released which concluded that Israel is guilty of genocide.

"We're not proposing to suspend trade with Israel, we are proposing to suspend trade preferences," said a senior unnamed European official.

A decades-long deal and trade-related pillar of the Israel-EU Association Agreement is reportedly what's on the chopping block. According to Middle East Eye:

Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said on Wednesday that if a qualified majority is reached, the EU will impose 230m euros ($166m) tariffs on 37 percent of the 15.9bn euros of the EU’s imports from Israel, instead of free trade. 

Israel is the EU's largest trade partner. In 2024, EU-Israel trade reached a record 42.6bn euros, of which 37 percent is “preferential treatment”, according to the EU's foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas.  

"So definitely this step will have a high cost for Israel," Kallas told Euronews on Tuesday.

The two ministers being targeted in the potential new measures are National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. They would face asset freezes and a blanket travel ban for travel within the European Union.

Smotrich's latest Wednesday comments will not at all help his case in the eyes of European officials. He has newly stated that the Gaza Strip that the Gaza Strip is a "real estate bonanza." Further he claimed to be in talks with the Americans on how to divide the enclave up once the Palestinians are kicked out.

There is "a real estate bonanza" in Gaza that "pays for itself" and he has "already started negotiations with the Americans," he said at a conference in Tel Aviv, according to local media.

"We have poured a lot of money into this war. We have to see how we are dividing up the land in percentages," Smotrich said, explaining that "the demolition, the first stage in the city’s renewal, we have already done. Now we just need to build."

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/17/2025 - 12:40