DOE's Hyperspeed Reactors

As the rate of data center development rises, more states should be following the Texas example, where each data center must have its own “behind the meter” onsite power generation. Instead, it appears data center development will continue to grossly outpace the rate of production for on-site electricity generation in most states.

To prevent skyrocketing electric bills, every state has to follow the Texas example: each data center must have its own "behind the meter" onsite power generation.

“We believe data centers should pay for the full cost of their power,” Dominion Energy spokesperson Aaron Ruby… https://t.co/0u1owTeAs8 pic.twitter.com/8W421s3rzV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 23, 2025

With power demand surging, driven heavily by new AI data centers, more people are starting to realize the best means for addressing future demand will be through clean nuclear energy. Unfortunately, decades of atrophy currently afflict today’s nuclear industry, and nuclear engineers are in desperate need of a “nuclear iteration playground” to quickly develop their advanced reactor designs to the commercial stage.

And then there is the issue of where the US gets 300,000 engineers to build all this missing power supply by 2030 https://t.co/a18crhqZ4v pic.twitter.com/tinW8SHDwM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

The current framework of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) does not allow for efficient iteration of reactor design. The licensing process, which used to take several years and has recently been reduced to a comparatively shorter timeline, would need to be heavily repeated for changes to reactor and secondary systems, reopening reactor developers to lawfare attacks from anti-nuclear activists like the Sierra Club and Beyond Nuclear. This leads to the million dollar question: “How do we enable efficient nuclear reactor iteration?”

Enter the Department of Energy

The American nuclear renaissance isn’t talk. It’s action.

— Office of Nuclear Energy | US Department of Energy (@GovNuclear) September 23, 2025

Derived from the Executive Orders issued by President Trump on May 23, 2025, the Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Reactor Pilot Program (RPP). Under this program, multiple companies were chosen to work with the DOE under an expedited licensing pathway to enable faster timelines to reach reactor construction, bringing reactor developers closer to the desired stage of design iteration to achieve economic and commercial scale at a faster pace.  The DOE also initiated the Fuel Line Pilot Program (FLPP) to rapidly progress technology within the nuclear fuel chain.

The primary goal of the RPP was to facilitate three new reactors achieving criticality by July 4, 2026, which was the specific directive given by the Executive Orders. The expedited path to actual steel in the ground is a massive secondary benefit. We recently highlighted one of the program's successes with Valar Atomics achieving cold criticality with Project NOVA.

The FLPP‘s biggest win to date came with the recent announcement of Oklo receiving approval for their Nuclear Safety Design Agreement (NSDA) for the Aurora Fuel Fabrication Facility, approved in just under two weeks.

Concern was expressed by many as to the amount of technical rigor applied to the NSDA review. How could the DOE review in two weeks what would’ve taken the NRC several months, or years? The answer we think others are missing lies in the six years of collaboration between Oklo and the DOE national laboratories. Oklo has been coordinating with Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on multiple projects, including their fuel fabrication facility and their fuel reprocessing technology, since 2019.  The DOE was able to use those two weeks to verify if there were any outstanding questions with the research and coordination that have occurred over those several years, instead of having to take several months or years to perform an independent review of data that had already been coordinated and verified by government laboratory scientists and staff (what the NRC would have to do).

Companies like Oklo will continue to enjoy benefits like these for the remainder of their time under the DOE. Eventually, they will also be able to utilize the recent addendum signed between the DOE and the NRC to very easily and rapidly transition their already approved Aurora reactor design to the NRC license review process for quick commercialization. 

Another under-discussed benefit to working with the federal government on federal land, is the lack of absolute nonsense that reactor developers no longer have to deal with.

• Oklo doesn't have to sit at a local town meeting and listen to grandma complain about how she doesn't want Chernobyl in her backyard
• Atomic Alchemy doesn't have to wait for state and local lawmakers to finish bickering and dragging their feet over changes to zoning laws
• Terrestrial Energy doesn't have to be subject to the weaponization of environmental regulations by the Sierra Club to force them to spend $900 million to protect salmon

The head of the UK nuclear regulatory taskforce says the country is...

"... spending £700m (~$900m) on systems to protect one salmon every ten years..."

... for the UK newest nuclear power plant. https://t.co/pfbL0uElGM

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) November 24, 2025

To a large extent, the federal government gets to do what it pleases on federal land. For now, it seems like the federal government is finally ready to give reactor developers what they have been in desperate need of – a nuclear iteration playground.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:40



 

 

At The Money: Finding the Hidden Alpha in SEC filings with Michelle Leder of Footnoted (December 3, 2025)

Is there Alpha to be found hidden in SEC filings? Management does seem to hide lots of bad news by just barely complying with the law. Recent indicators are this is getting worse…

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest: Michelle Leder is a researcher covering Corporate SEC-filings; she founded the research service “Footnoted” focusing on uncovering material information hidden in corporate SEC filings.

For more info, see:

Footnoted *

Book: “Fine Print, Uncovering A Company’s True Value.”

LinkedIn

Twitter

~~~

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify.

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

Intro:  “Honesty is such a lonely word, Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard, And mostly what I need from you”

 

Have you ever wondered what management buries in their SEC filings. Do they faithfully follow their obligations to their shareholders, or do they see how much they could get away with either not disclosing or hiding?

To help us unpack all of this and what it might mean for your portfolio, let’s speak to Michelle Leder. She is an SEC-filings wonk and specialist; she founded the research Service footnoted, focusing on uncovering material information hidden in corporate SEC filings. She’s also the author of the book, financial “Fine Print, Uncovering A Company’s True Value.”

So Michelle, let, let’s just start out with a basic definition.

What is disclosure? What are the rules that the SEC requires all companies to provide to their in investors?

Michelle Leder: Believe it or not, a lot of the main rules or the framework, if you will, it dates back to 1933. Think about that for a minute. That’s the basic framework, if you will. Like the foundation of the house is dates back to 20, 1933, which is kind of amazing.

It’s 92 years ago. Think about how much has changed in the markets. There’s the, the internet, for example, and you don’t have to call your broker and say, buy me some pork bellies or whatever. It, it’s really kind of amazing that the, the primary framework dates back over 90 years. Um, of course it’s been updated, over the years, but, this is sort of the, the foundation of the house.

This is what. Companies go back to companies and their attorneys go back to time and time again. They’ll talk about the 1933 act, which of course came after 1929 and the Great Depression.

Barry Ritholtz: So let, and that was what? Started the SEC, so let’s talk a little bit about the various filings. Most of us are familiar with the quarterlies, the 10 Qs, but there are also eight Ks and 10 Ks and merger proxies.

Tell us the broad documents that every company is either required to file with the SEC or when a specific event happens is triggered and then has to do a filing.

Michelle Leder: At a bare minimum, publicly traded companies have to file three 10 Qs a year. That’s the quarterly report and one 10 K, and that’s the annual report.

And then 8Ks are filed on an as needed basis, and those are often thought of as material events, but it’s also earnings releases or a press release. A lot of people think that press releases are equivalent to 8Ks, and that’s actually not true. Companies will often put out a press release and maybe they’ll attach it to an 8K, maybe they won’t, but there’s a difference between them.  Companies will often disclose something. In an AK that they never intend to put a press release out on.

Barry Ritholtz: To that point, I love this quote of yours. “Companies know they have to disclose bad news, but they also know they don’t have to post it on a billboard.”

Explain what, what, what other obligations, what do they have to say and when?

Michelle Leder: In general, if something is the, the, the definition is basically something that a reasonable investor would want to know, and that’s what triggers an eight k. A lot of people think that, that, the shorthand is like something material, but materiality is in the eye of be of the beholder.

Something that might be material to me may not be material to you. And there’s a lot of judgment calls. There’s no real like tests. I mean, of course, like. If the CEO resigns and he, absconds with like, $500 million, that’s a pretty easy test.

But you don’t see a lot of those, right?

There’s something a lot less, significant. And then there’s a discussion of like, well, do we need to disclose this, do we not? And I’ve seen it, quite frankly, all over the map. I mean, I’ve seen companies, for example, the most minor enforcement thing that a company can do is get a comment letter from the SEC.

And that’s basically like. Hey, we noticed this thing. Can you explain it a little bit more? And then the more serious thing is a wells notice. And I’ve seen companies like, for example, which is, pretty serious. It’s, it’s, it involves, uh, providing much more detailed information. Attorneys are involved, blah, blah, blah.

And I’ve seen some companies not disclose a wells notice, and I’ve seen some companies disclose a comment letter. So it really can be all over the map. That’s what makes it a little bit confusing and a little bit, hard to figure out. You can’t always say, if this happens, we have to disclose.

Sometimes there’s a lot of wiggle room in there

Barry Ritholtz:  For people who are just curious. The comment letters tend to be pretty minor, a wells notice. Typically gets sent to a firm when the SEC has concluded an investigation and is planning on bringing an enforcement action.

I would imagine that’s fairly material all the time. Am I wrong?

Michelle Leder: You would think, but I’ve seen companies wait instead of like, instead of putting out an 8k that they’ve received a Wells notice, they’ll say that they, uh, they’ll wait until the queue to disclose that. And, of course the Q is all focused on the earnings. So it’s like, buried in there somewhere, usually in their legal disclosure or maybe a risk factor,

Other tricky things that companies will do, all of a sudden, I’ve seen this over and over again, like instead of a subpoena. They’ll say subpoenas, they’ll suddenly make something plural. They won’t put out a press release and say, oh, hey, by the way, we got another subpoena. And companies play these kind of tricks. I mean, they do subtle changes andit’s really up to you as the investor to catch ’em.

Barry Ritholtz:  So what are some of the more common tricks you see that management uses to technically comply with the law and disclose material bad news to investors while at the same time trying to minimize attention to that?

Michelle Leder: Probably the number one thing, um, I see is like companies waiting until late on a Friday or the Wednesday before Thanksgiving with some reason they can choose when they wanna disclose. The rule is actually you have to disclose within four business days.

But of course with holidays and, and other things that can often be, stretched, it’s not as if like, the CFO suddenly resigns and you’ve gotta disclose at that minute. I’ve seen companies wait four days to disclose that, and that’s following the letter of the law.

Now, I would think that if the CFO suddenly resigns from the company as an investor, you wanna know about that right away.

Barry Ritholtz: So the Friday night data dump. After four o’clock, but before the SEC closes at 5:30 is legal, but sounds a little sketchy. How often do you find these sorts of things are disclosing information that ultimately affects the stock’s price?

Michelle Leder: I would say, pretty often, although it’s not an instantaneous thing, um, a lot of what I do is I see an early warning sign. here I’m out in LA and I often think about it as going to the dermatologist and saying, “Hey, I see this mole on my upper arm. Is that cancer? Or do I not have to worry about it?” that’s the type of thing.

It’s an early warning sign that there could be a potential problem. Rarely I would say, do you find like a, what I would call, like what someone might call a smoking gun. It’s not like, like, oh, the CEO embezzled, $500 million, whatever, and we’re filing for bankruptcyMonday morning type of thing.

Barry Ritholtz:  Tell us about the non-disclosure. Disclosure. I love that phrase.

Michelle Leder: Companies know that they have to disclose stuff, and what they often do is they’ll give you the bare minimum of facts, and that’s what they do.

They might say, like, for example, director Alan Smith resigned on a Friday. But they don’t tell you that, oh, maybe he was a member of the audit committee, or maybe he was the former CEO of the company, or maybe he was chairman of the audit committee, or any number of other information and that requires you to go to another filing the proxy statement really to figure out was he a long time director?

Had he only served on the board for three months? All of these things are, information that companies have, but they’re not providing it to their investors. So that’s like, that’s what I would call non-disclosure disclosure. It’s like they’re giving you the bare minimum, but not giving you anything more.

Barry Ritholtz:  Let’s talk about some metadata, red flags. A phrase I’ve picked up from you. I’ve read discussions about repeated amendments of, of various filings or reports that are consistently late. How much of this is just, “Hey, the world is complex and sometimes these things don’t happen on time,” and how much of this is Potentially predictive of real problems at the company?

Michelle Leder: I would say anytime a company can’t get its 10 K or 10 Q in on time, that’s a potential problem. If that happens repeatedly, that’s pattern recognition, right? Like if it goes on for a quarter for, several quarters, or longer that’s a potential problem, right? Companies know, for the most part, they have to get their queues in 40 days after the close of the quarter. And so, if they don’t, those companies that don’t get their filings, they’re 10 queues in on time. If they’re on a September quarter, that’s an indication of a potential issue.

If it’s the third time they haven’t been able to get their 10 Q in on time? And of course there’s exceptions, maybe the company’s going through a big merger, right? Like, when you saw like. For example, like the Albertsons-Kroger thing, a couple years ago, there was like problems there because they were trying to merge the company and there was all this regulatory stuff

If you can easily explain a late filing. I wouldn’t say that every single time a late filing is a problem, but I would say more often than not, it is.

Barry Ritholtz: Your website is called Footnoted. Tell us an example of what looked like a minor footnote in a company filing, or disclosure that. You spotted that later turned out to be a really big story.

Michelle Leder: There’s a couple of examples. One is like, Zoetis, the major animal pharmaceutical company. I started looking into them earlier, well late last year, I would say the, to toward, toward the tail end of 2024. And I put out some research to my clients, back in February of this year.

At the time, they were underplaying their, the dangers associated with one of their so-called blockbuster drugs.

Barry Ritholtz:  If I recall, their drug was causing seizures and deaths on in dogs that had no previous, history of that. There, there literally should not have been released to the veterinary community.

Give us another example that, that. A footnote turned out to be a big story.

Michelle Leder: Back in in 2022, Nicola had like a, uh, what I would call a seemingly minor disclosure. It was about a sudden resignation, by an executive, not the CEO or CFO, just another, like another.

Person who was a “named executive” – that’s a formal term, which is usually the five top executives of the company. Suddenly, and it seemed kind of unimportant, but then it turned out to be an early sign of like basically rats abandoning the ship. And of course we all know Nicolo wound up filing for bankruptcy.

And so it’s kind of like following those breadcrumbs and trying to figure out, figure out what’s really going on at the company. What are they disclosing? What are they trying to tell investors? How can I, try to figure out what’s going on.

Barry Ritholtz: How do you separate what’s really a material red flag and and something that might actually be tradable to just a normal CYA language? That’s in every legal document a corporation produces.

Michelle Leder: I think that’s a great question. And quite frankly, it’s kind of tricky, right? Like it’s, it’s, there is a lot of CYA language in the filings and, um, it can be problematic.

I’d like to think that. after 20 years of reading, SEC filings pretty intensively, that I’m pretty good. My BS meter is pretty well defined and I can kind of tell when something is CYA versus something is, more serious. Of course there is a lot of that language. the filings are ultimately written by lawyers. Now, maybe they’re written by lawyers. I’ve seen a lot more these days. Maybe they’re written by, chat GPT or whatever AI, whatever AI platform they wanna use to write these filings. But ultimately it’s the lawyers that are signing up and lawyers are obviously, tend to be risk averse

Barry Ritholtz: Given the ubiquity of AI these days. How significant is AI in things like corporate filings and how do you use AI to kind of figure out what’s going on with, with all these different things?

Michelle Leder: Well, I think AI is pretty significant in corporate filings. You’re seeing it, more and more, and I’ve certainly, I think I read a journal story like, two or three weeks ago that talked about filings in quarterly work. Or it’s an even conference call, trans, conference call scripts are being written by AI and being used to kind of train, um, executives on how to answer questions, whereas before it used to be sort of in person and, kind of that thing.

I think like AI is of course, becoming much more common in this type of thing. And then of course there’s the tools that are being used to uncover what’s going on in the filings.

I do use AI. There’s a tool that I been using, um, a lot lately. It’s called Fin Tool. And, it’s, interesting because it’s really AI definitely designed around SEC filings as opposed to a more generic AI like a Chat or like, Claude or, pick your AI tool of choice. This one’s strictly focused on SEC filings and, and financial disclosures. And I find it to be pretty good.

Of course, AI is not perfect and so you have to kind of, figure things out. It’s not gonna get everything. But I think, increasingly it can be a helpful tool in trying to detect patterns.

So, like, for example, if I wanted to know, like, how many CFOs, let’s just say, company X has had in the past 10 years. in the past I would’ve had to dug through different filings, I mean, Bloomberg would of course have that information on the terminal, but, that’s the type of thing that AI can really help you with.

Things like that —  going through and, and putting the pieces together.

Barry Ritholtz: To wrap up, if you’re an active trader or if you buy speculative stocks or. Even if you have questions about the management of some of the companies you own, it might be useful to pay attention to their SEC filings, especially the things they may not want you to see items they’re dumping on a Friday evening.

Or barely meeting the minimum disclosure requirements. There’s a, there’s gold in them. There are hills if  where to look, and if  how to interpret it. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Bloomberg’s At the Money.

 

Outro:  “Honesty is such a lonely word, Everyone is so untrue
Honesty is hardly ever heard, And mostly what I need from you”

 

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post At The Money: Finding the Hidden Alpha in SEC filings appeared first on The Big Picture.

The AI Economy And The Public Risk Few Are Willing To Admit

Authored by Mark Keenan via GlobalResearch.ca,

Artificial intelligence is being sold as the technology that will “change everything.” Yet while a handful of firms are profiting enormously from the AI boom, the financial risk may already be shifting to the public. The louder the promises become, the quieter another possibility seems to be:

What if AI is not accelerating the global economy - but masking its slow down?

The headlines declare that AI is transforming medicine, education, logistics, finance, and culture. But when I speak with people in ordinary jobs, a different reality emerges: wages feel sluggish, job openings are tightening, and the loudest optimism often comes from sectors most financially invested in the AI narrative.

This raises an uncomfortable question: Has AI become a true engine of prosperity — or a financial life-support system?

The Mirage of Growth

Recent economic data suggests that a significant portion of U.S. GDP growth is being driven not by broad productivity, but by AI-related infrastructure spending — especially data centers.

A study from S&P Global found that in Q2 of 2025, data center construction alone added 0.5% to U.S. GDP. That is historic. But what happens if this spending slows? Are we witnessing genuine economic expansion — or merely a short-term stimulus disguised as innovation?

This pattern is not new. In Ireland in 2008 — before the housing collapse — construction boomed, GDP rose, and skepticism was treated as pessimism. The United States experienced something similar the same year: real estate appeared to be a pillar of prosperity — until it wasn’t. On paper, economies looked strong. In reality, fragility was already setting in.

Today, echoes of that optimism are returning — except this time, the bubble may be silicon, data, and expectation.

The Productivity Paradox

AI has been presented as a labor-saving miracle. But many businesses report a different experience: “work slop” — AI-generated content that looks polished yet must be painstakingly corrected by humans. Time is not saved — it is quietly relocated.

Studies reflect the same paradox:

• According to media coverage, MIT found that 95% of corporate AI pilot programs show no measurable ROI.

• MIT Sloan research indicates that AI adoption can lead to initial productivity losses — and that any potential gains depend on major organizational and human adaptation.

• Even McKinsey — one of AI’s greatest evangelists — warns that AI only produces value after major human and organizational change. “Piloting gen AI is easy, but creating value is hard.”

This suggests that AI has not removed human labor. It has hidden it — behind algorithms, interfaces, and automated output that still requires correction.

We are not replacing work. We may only be concealing it.

AI may appear efficient, but it operates strictly within the limits of its training data: it can replicate mistakes, miss what humans would notice, and often reinforce a consensus version of reality rather than reality itself. Once AI becomes an administrative layer — managing speech, research, hiring, and access to capital — it can become financially embedded into institutions, whether or not it produces measurable productivity.

As I explore in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI at that point, AI does not enhance judgment — it administers it. And then we should ask:

Is AI improving society — or merely managing and controlling it?

The Global Data Center Stampede — But Toward What?

McKinsey estimates that over $6.7 trillion  may be spent on AI and computing infrastructure by 2030 — a level of capital allocation typically seen in wartime. But what exactly is being built, and will it ever return value to ordinary people?

The United States is not the only nation embedding AI within its economic strategy. Similar trends are emerging globally:

• EU: funding AI infrastructure via public bonds

• China: integrating AI into its “national rejuvenation” strategy

• Singapore / UAE / Ireland: offering major tax incentives to build data-center zones

• BRICS: framing AI as a counterweight to Western digital dominance

AI may no longer be a neutral technology — it is becoming a strategic instrument shaped globally by national policy, geopolitical competition, and financial pressure. The question is no longer whether AI will shape national policy — but whether policy itself is already being reshaped in service of an AI orthodoxy.

Analysts warn that parts of the industry may already resemble a circular economy of expectations: cloud and chip companies invest in AI startups that then buy computing services from the very firms that fund them. Speculation becomes demand — and demand becomes proof of viability.

If this pattern repeats globally, AI may not represent a technological revolution — but a new public liability embedded into national strategies.

The Genesis Mission — And the Rise of State-Protected AI

A November 2025 U.S. executive order — internally referred to as the “Genesis Mission” — may institutionalize AI infrastructure by merging:

• federal supercomputers

• national-lab datasets

• taxpayer funding

• private-sector AI firms

into a unified national AI platform.

This does not guarantee bailouts — but it creates the conditions under which major AI firms may become “too big to fail”. Once AI is embedded into national strategy, failure becomes political.

We may be witnessing the transformation of AI from speculative investment into a publicly underwritten enterprise.

Under these conditions, any failure — technological, economic, or environmental — will not remain private. It will become a public cost.

Are we potentially witnessing a new socialisation of private risk and debt — similar to what occurred after the 2008 housing collapse in the United States, Ireland and elsewhere — with the burden once again transferred onto the public?

Who Carries the Risk?

The concern is not just the data boundaries of AI itself and the “consensus reality” it portrays — but where the financial risk may already be hiding.

Large retirement funds and passive index portfolios are now concentrated in AI-dependent giants such as Nvidia, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Tesla. On the debt side, data-center financing and private credit tied to AI infrastructure are quietly entering bond portfolios.

This means the AI boom is not simply an investment trend. It may already be embedded inside the retirement accounts of ordinary citizens — without their knowledge.

Across borders, governments risk repeating the same pattern: constructing AI infrastructure before proving that it benefits society.

Questions the Global Public Deserves Answers To

• Is AI transforming work — or creating new layers of hidden labor?

• Are data centers driving prosperity — or merely propping up GDP?

• Are citizens knowingly investing in AI — or being invested through passive portfolios?

• Is AI creating value — or simply absorbing public capital and subsidies?

When enough money, debt, and public credibility are tied to a technology, questioning it becomes difficult — and supporting it becomes mandatory.

Conclusion

As I wrote in the book Staying Human in the Age of AI, we should not allow AI to overshadow human thought. History reminds us that optimism is most dangerous when it becomes unquestioned. AI may still deliver genuine breakthroughs — but belief is currently moving faster than evidence.

If AI delivers value, perhaps this risk will be justified. If it does not — the cost will not fall on venture capital. It will fall on pensioners, savers, taxpayers, and future generations.

Now that AI is being treated as national infrastructure, its success or failure is no longer a private gamble. It has become a global public risk — and public risks always come with a public bill.

If we allow AI to define the future, we risk forgetting that the future is still ours to define.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 16:20

Jan. 6 Defendant Sues Federal Government Over Alleged Abuses In Custody

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A former Jan. 6 defendant who alleges he was repeatedly abused in custody is suing the federal government for almost $18 million.

Ryan Samsel of Bristol, Pennsylvania, was convicted in September 2024 of civil disorder-related offenses in connection with the civil disturbance at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and was incarcerated and awaiting sentencing when President Donald Trump pardoned him on Jan. 20 of this year.

The civil legal process in Samsel’s case was initiated when the Department of Justice (DOJ) was served with a notice under the Federal Tort Claims Act on Nov. 28, his attorney, Peter Haller, told The Epoch Times. A tort is a wrongful act or infringement of a right that gives rise to civil liability.

To sue under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a claimant has to file an administrative claim with a federal agency within two years after the injury takes place. The agency then has six months to settle or deny the claim. The plaintiff then has six months after the claim is denied or the agency fails to respond to the claim to file a civil lawsuit against the federal government in federal district court.

The document that begins the process, known as a Standard Form 95, states that Samsel is seeking $17,980,000 from the federal government for personal injuries suffered from January 2021 through January 2025.

Samsel, now 42, was found guilty of “assaulting Officer C.E. with a deadly or dangerous weapon and inflicting bodily injury,” during the civil unrest at the U.S. Capitol, the DOJ said last year.

The DOJ said Samsel was also convicted on felony charges of civil disorder, assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, as well as assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers using a dangerous weapon.

Haller said his client disputes the criminal allegations and that the officer identified as C.E. suffered no injury, which he said was clear from a magnetic resonance imaging scan and other medical evaluations.

Samsel alleges he was subjected to physical abuse while in custody at facilities operated by the DOJ and the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in the District of Columbia, New York, and Virginia.

There were 62 “separate assaults and other torts committed against Mr. Samsel while in the custody of the United States, as well as cruel and unusual punishment,” Haller said in the legal filing.

“Given the severity, duration, and documented multiplicity of the abuses suffered by Mr. Samsel, he is likely to be recognized as the most tortured individual by the Federal Government in recent American history,” the attorney said.

The form states that during Samsel’s four-year federal detention, he suffered 62 torts that “reflect a continuous scheme to physically and mentally harm him throughout his imprisonment and continuously deny him necessary medical treatment for serious vascular issues that pre-existed prison as well as for most injuries sustained from attacks by corrections officers during prison.”

The form said Samsel was held in custody for almost seven months but was not indicted until Aug. 25, 2021, which was “in clear violation of due process.”

As a result of his incarceration, Samsel suffers from “permanent physical impairment stemming from multiple documented injuries sustained during his incarceration.” Among those injuries are a dislocated jaw, broken right orbital bone, broken nose, lacerations, contusions, and acute kidney damage, “all resulting from coordinated assaults by correctional staff and other inmates,” the form said.

He still suffers from partial loss of vision in his right eye, persistent pain, and swelling related to his injuries, and needs ongoing medical attention for eye and chest injuries, blood clots, and thoracic outlet syndrome, according to the form.

In addition, he suffers panic attacks and “other uncontrollable emotional consequences,” as well as physical deterioration, chronic pain, and high cholesterol that came about as a result of his prolonged confinement and inadequate nutrition while in custody, the form said.

In November 2021, Samsel was forced to sit in a restraint chair for about 17 hours, where he was on public display for local schoolchildren to see him through a window. While in the chair, he was left in his own waste and developed a blood clot, according to a table of torts attached to the form.

From January to August 2021, Samsel was placed in a segregated unit for Jan. 6 prisoners in which the lights were on at all times. He was denied exercise and showers. He suffered sleep deprivation for about seven months, the table said.

Haller said his client received three “major beatings” from corrections officers and in two different prisons he was housed in closet-sized rooms.

Haller said the abuse his client experienced was comparable to the experiences of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, Iraq, more than two decades ago.

Reports of alleged widespread torture and abuse of prisoners held by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib during the 2003 Iraq war first emerged more than 20 years ago, when leaked photos appeared to show detainees being forced into humiliating positions.

“The parallel of Ryan’s torture to that of Abu Ghraib is remarkable–17 hours in a restraint chair with students as witnesses, multiple beatings by officers, multiple multi-month stretches in solitary with lights on 24/7, a broom closet for a cell, housed in a high security floor of [Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York] with murderers who stabbed him, starvation, repeated humiliation,” Haller told The Epoch Times.

“These forms of severe mental and physical abuse, disorientation and humiliation were all applied against Ryan Samsel just as they were against the prisoners of Abu Ghraib; the only meaningful difference is that in Abu Ghraib, Arab and Middle Eastern terrorists generally suffered torture for a year or less—whereas Ryan Samsel was tortured for four years,” Haller said.

The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ for comment. No reply was received by publication time.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 15:45

F-16 Fighter Jet Crashes In Southern California

Southern California's ABC7 reports that an F-16 fighter jet has crashed near Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake.

#BREAKINGNEWS: San Bernardino County firefighters responding to reports of crash possibly involving F-16 aircraft near China Lake https://t.co/Dh7bmvLASE

— ABC7 Eyewitness News (@ABC7) December 3, 2025

Breaking911 has posted what appear to be images of the aftermath of the jet crash.

Reports of an F-16C Fighting Falcon from the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds crashed near Trona Airport, south of Death Valley, California. The pilot reportedly ejected safely, suffered minor injuries, and was taken to a Ridgecrest hospital. pic.twitter.com/Nl9xRjcC6G

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 3, 2025

"F-16 Thunderbird 5 photographed with its last takeoff before it crashed in Trona, CA. Insane to see six of them take off from Nellis and only five returned. I'll try to post the images later of the Thunderbird's last takeoff. This is just a picture of the screen from my camera," photographer Kelvin Cheng wrote on X.

F16 Thunderbird 5 photographed with its last takeoff before it crashed in Trona, CA. Insane to see six of them take off from Nellis and only five returned. I’ll try to post the images later of the Thunderbird’s last takeoff. This is just a picture of the screen from my camera pic.twitter.com/rJaIfXpLHN

— Kelvin Cheng (@kelvinkccheng) December 3, 2025

Developing…

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 15:11

9 In 10 College Students Think 'Words Can Be Violence'; Survey

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

Nine out of ten undergraduate students think that “words can be violence” at least “somewhat,” according to a new Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression survey. 

The poll also showed that ideological gaps between left-leaning and right-leaning students are widening.

When respondents were asked how much the statement “words can be violence” describes their thoughts, 47 percent answered with “completely” or “mostly.” Twenty-eight percent said it describes their thoughts “somewhat,” and 15 percent said “slightly.”

Additionally, around 59 percent of students said “silence is violence” describes their views at least “somewhat,” though only 28 percent said it describes their thoughts “completely” or “mostly.” 

“When people start thinking that words can be violence, violence becomes an acceptable response to words,” FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens said in a news release following the poll. 

“Even after the murder of Charlie Kirk at a speaking event, college students think that someone’s words can be a threat. This is antithetical to a free and open society, where words are the best alternative to political violence,” Stevens said. 

The poll also showed that moderate and conservative students have grown less supportive of disruptive or violent tactics to stop campus speakers, while liberal students’ support for those tactics has stayed the same or risen slightly compared to the spring. 

At the same time, moderate and conservative students have become more open to allowing controversial speakers, while liberal students have maintained or increased their opposition to those speakers.

In particular, opposition among liberal students “increased considerably” to a speaker who previously said “The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan” and “Children should be allowed to transition without parental consent,” according to the survey report. 

FIRE conducted the survey in collaboration with College Pulse to evaluate campus free speech after Charlie Kirk’s Sept. 10 assassination at Utah Valley University. The poll contained 21 questions and was given to 2,028 undergrads to gauge their comfort with a range of sensitive topics.

Half of the students surveyed said Kirk’s assassination has made them less willing to attend or host controversial events on campus, and about 20 percent reported feeling less comfortable even going to class.

A majority of students said the incident made no difference in their willingness to speak up on controversial political topics in class. However, 19 percent said they felt a “great deal” less comfortable 26 percent said they felt “slightly” less comfortable.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 15:05

Rep. Henry Cuellar Assures Democrats He's Still Loyal After Trump Pardons Him From Money Laundering, FARA Case

Earlier Wednesday, President Trump announced on Truth Social that he's pardoning Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who was charged along with his wife in May 2024 for allegedly partaking in two schemes involving bribery, unlawful foreign influence, and money laundering. 

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) gives an interview in Laredo, Texas, on Oct. 9, 2019. Veronica Cardenas/Reuters

Specifically, they were charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit bribery of a federal official and to have a public official act as an agent of a foreign principal required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA); two counts of bribery of a federal official; two counts of conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud; two counts of violating the ban on public officials acting as agents of a foreign principal required to register under FARA; one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering; and five counts of money laundering, the Epoch Times notes. 

They faced up to 20 years behind bars if convicted.

"For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them. One of the clearest examples of this was when Crooked Joe used the FBI and DOJ to “take out” a member of his own Party after Highly Respected Congressman Henry Cuellar bravely spoke out against Open Borders, and the Biden Border “Catastrophe.” Sleepy Joe went after the Congressman, and even the Congressman’s wonderful wife, Imelda, simply for speaking the TRUTH," Trump wrote. 

"Henry, I don’t know you, but you can sleep well tonight — Your nightmare is finally over!"

The Charges Between at least December 2014 and November 2021, Cuellar and his wife allegedly accepted approximately $600,000 in bribes from an oil and gas company wholly owned and controlled by the government of Azerbaijan, and a Mexico City-based bank, according to a statement from the Department of Justice.

The payments were allegedly laundered “through a series of front companies and middlemen into shell companies owned by Imelda Cuellar, who performed little to no legitimate work under the contracts,” the statement said.

“In exchange for the bribes paid by the Azerbaijani oil and gas company, Congressman Cuellar allegedly agreed to use his office to influence U.S. foreign policy in favor of Azerbaijan,” it said.

“In exchange for the bribes paid by the Mexican bank, Congressman Cuellar allegedly agreed to influence legislative activity and to advise and pressure high-ranking U.S. Executive Branch officials regarding measures beneficial to the bank.”

Cuellar Reassures Dems

Shortly after the pardon, Cuellar told a small group of reporters that it "came as a surprise," adding "I want to thank President Trump for this. … Now we clear the air. Nothing has changed, and we’re going to be ready to win re-election again."

Trump's announcement stoked concerns among Democrats that the 11-term veteran might finally switch to the GOP after years of hinting at it, or that he could simply retire - which would give Republicans a much better chance to flip his seat. 

"Nothing has changed — I’m a good old conservative Democrat," Cuellar said Wednesday. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 14:45

"Get Rid Of It" - Trump Suggests He'll Soon Slash/End Income Tax

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

President Trump signaled Tuesday that the federal income tax could soon be history. Speaking to reporters after a cabinet meeting, Trump laid out a vision of economic freedom powered by massive tariff revenues from foreign nations— putting America First instead of bleeding hardworking citizens dry to fund globalist giveaways.

With tariffs surging and billions pouring in from trade deals, Trump is paving the way for a tax revolution that could explode the economy overnight. The President’s declaration came during a press gaggle at the White House, where he emphasised the unprecedented revenue streaming into U.S. coffers thanks to his tough trade policies.

“I believe that at some point in the not-too distant future, you won’t even have income tax to pay,” Trump stated plainly. He elaborated, “Because the money we’re taking in is so great and it’s so enormous that you’re not going to have an income tax to pay. Whether you get rid of it or just keep it around for fun or have it really low, much lower than it is now, but you won’t be paying income tax.”

BREAKING: President Trump just announced he expects the income tax to be ABOLISHED soon.

This would be the single greatest economic move in American history. Imagine taking home 100% of your paycheck?

The economy would explode overnight. ? pic.twitter.com/aJYqvkUNQy

— Ryan Fournier (@RyanAFournier) December 2, 2025

Trump’s push to axe the income tax isn’t new—it’s rooted in his America First agenda that flips the script on how the government funds itself. As he explained in his inaugural address, “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens. For this purpose, we are establishing the External Revenue Service to collect all tariffs, duties, and revenues. It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our Treasury, coming from foreign sources.”

This echoes his campaign trail musings, where he told podcaster Joe Rogan that tariffs could fully replace income taxes. “Yeah, sure, why not?” Trump replied when asked if he was serious about ditching personal income taxes.

Now, with tariffs already raking in hundreds of billions—up 250% from last year—the numbers are backing him up. Income tax hauled in about $2.7 trillion in fiscal 2025, but Trump’s team projects tariffs and foreign investments could eclipse that, especially with pledges like Japan’s $650 billion, South Korea’s $350 billion, and the EU’s $950 billion pouring into U.S. plants and jobs.

Recent reports highlight how this fits into broader reforms, including the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which promises huge tax refunds and real wage hikes in 2026. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent boasted at the same meeting: “In 2026, we are going to see very substantial tax refunds in the First Quarter… We’re going to see real wage increases. I think next year is going to be a fantastic year.”

.@SecScottBessent: "In 2026, we are going to see very substantial tax refunds in the First Quarter… We're going to see real wage increases. I think next year is going to be a fantastic year." pic.twitter.com/3XTBD8wK7q

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) December 2, 2025

Of course, the usual suspects in the media and academia are already hyperventilating. Economists aligned with the old guard, like those from UCLA and NYU, whine that tariffs “can’t replace” income tax revenue, claiming it’d shift burdens or balloon the debt. Funny how they never complain when trillions get funneled to Ukraine or climate scams, but suggest letting Americans keep their money? Suddenly, it’s “fantasy.”

Trump himself dismissed the doubters by pointing to historical precedent: the U.S. thrived in the late 19th century with “all tariffs, no income tax.” His vision includes potentially eliminating the IRS altogether, a dream for anyone who’s suffered through their audits and overreach.

Fox Business notes this as Trump’s “most explicit endorsement” yet of scrapping income taxes, marking a potential overhaul unseen in over 100 years. And with a narrow House majority, the fight will be fierce—but Trump’s track record on trade wars shows he doesn’t back down from globalist bullies.

Trump expanded on the timeline in recent comments: “Over the next couple of years, I think we’ll substantially be cutting—and maybe cutting out completely—income tax. We could be almost completely cutting it because the money we’re taking in is going to be so large.” He tied it directly to protecting American industries: “We’re taking in, think of it, hundreds of billions. Next year, it’ll be a trillion dollars or more, but we’re taking in all this money while protecting our country. And we’re respected again.”

This isn’t about handouts; it’s about fairness. Why should blue-collar workers foot the bill for elite excesses when foreign nations can pay up through tariffs? As Trump put it, “They actually respect us. And they made the deals. I mean, they respect us, but they pay us.”

If he pulls this off, it’ll be a massive win for freedom, unleashing prosperity like never before. America First means keeping your paycheck—all of it!

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 Wed, 12/03/2025 - 14:25

This graph shows heavy truck sales since 1967 using data from the BEA. The dashed line is the November 2025 seasonally adjusted annual sales rate (SAAR) of 367 thousand.

Note: "Heavy trucks - trucks more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight."

Click on graph for larger image.

Heavy truck sales were at 367 thousand SAAR in November, up from 339 thousand in October, and down 25.2% from 491 thousand SAAR in November 2024.
Year-to-date (NSA) sales are down 13.2% in 2025 compared to 2024 through November.
Usually, heavy truck sales decline sharply prior to a recession, and sales have collapsed recently.  

Spending Slowdown Hits Apple App Store In Major Markets

Apple App Store spending cooled in November, dragged down by weakening demand across several of Apple's largest global markets, which together account for more than half of all App Store revenue.

Goldman analysts led by Michael Ng published a note Tuesday citing Sensor Tower data showing Apple App Store spending last month rose just 6% YoY, down from 9% in October and half the growth rate seen in July.

Sensor Tower data showed that Games, the App Store's largest category (44% of revenue), drove most of the slowdown, falling 2% YoY after growing 3% the previous month.

"Weakening consumer demand for products and services. Apple's products and services are typically sold to consumers, and any weakness in the macroeconomic environment could reduce demand for Apple products and services," Ng said.

There was no definitive explanation beyond the softer "macroeconomic environment" for the App Store slowdown.

By geography, four of Apple's top five markets - the US, Japan, the UK, and Canada - experienced a broad-based slowdown in App Store spending. This raises near-term downside risk and could weigh on App Store revenue.

However, despite slowing App Store spending growth rates, Ng still expects Apple's F1Q26 Services revenue to meet guidance (14% YoY) because other Service lines - including iCloud+, AppleCare+, Apple Music, Apple Pay, and broader subscriptions - continue to perform well.

Here are the key takeaways from the App Store spending slowdown:

• November 2025 App Store net revenue grew +6% YoY, decelerating from +9% in October. November marks the slowest month of 2025 and sits below the 2022–2024 average November growth rate of +10% YoY.

• By category, the slowdown was primarily driven by Games (-2% YoY vs. +3% YoY in October), which represent ~44% of total revenue. Among the next largest categories: Entertainment (15% of total) accelerated to +5% YoY (from +4%), while Photo & Video (8% of total) decelerated slightly to +16% YoY (from +17%).

• By geography, spending slowed across Apple's largest markets: the US (36% of total) cooled to +3% YoY (from +8%), Japan (10%) fell to -2% (from +4%), while China (20%) improved slightly to -1% (from -2%).

Notice that the App Store spending slowdown has persisted for much of the year.

Whoops.

Not good.

The question of why consumers are cutting back on gaming apps is a big one. It's happening across Apple's major markets, which could point to more financially pressured consumers, smartphone fatigue, or competitive app stores soaking up market share. Whatever the cause, the drop in demand signals Tim Cook will have to take corrective measures heading into 2026.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 13:45

The BEA reported that light vehicle sales were at 15.6 million in November on a seasonally adjusted annual basis (SAAR). This was up 2.0% from the sales rate in October, and down 5.6% from November 2024.

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows light vehicle sales since 2006 from the BEA (blue) through October (red from Omdia).
Vehicle sales were over 17 million SAAR in March and April as consumers rushed to "beat the tariffs".
Then sales were depressed in May and June. 
Sales were boosted in August and September due to the termination of the EV credit at the end of September.

The second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.

Sales in November were slightly above the consensus forecast of 15.4 million SAAR.

"Deckchairs" On The Titanic?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The conclusion to yesterday’s Global Daily was that we are still in a systemic metacrisis. True, many market metrics don’t show it - but how many deckchairs told the Titanic’s passengers they were heading for the iceberg? Markets have a vital role, as do chairs, but expecting them to reflect the potential enormity of what’s going on could end up with you being in very cold water.

Here are two recent headlines to send a shiver down spines: ‘Fear and loathing come for Bitcoin as big investors ponder selling’ (Australian Financial Review); and, ‘It’s time to sound the alarm on growing fiscal and financial risk’ (Financial Times) as “Rising public debt is one concern - another is how it is being financed.” Of course, things look healthier in other areas.

Let’s continue with central banking. The RBA Governor said rates might have to go back up if inflation does. Who knew? Not the RBA or the markets reassured by its projections. Trump says he’ll nominate the next Fed Chair in early 2026’: it seems Hassett is frontrunner. That opens the door to new Fed purpose as well as personnel. Markets are slow to grasp the full implications.

Russia said talks with the US about a Ukraine peace plan were “constructive”, but “no compromise” had been reached on territorial issues. However, we see serious concerns this ends up in an ugly --and expensive-- deal which weakens Europe. Pressure is also increasing for NATO to spend more, faster: but with whose money? The European Commission is making a late offer to win Belgian backing for its Russian asset loan scheme, which the ECB is refusing to back - critics argue it’s a de facto asset confiscation that could damage Europe’s reputation as well as ensuring there’s no peace deal. It is, in effect, ‘victor’s terms’ when Europe has won nothing.

Worse, in response to Europe’s hardline political rhetoric and slimline actions, Putin warned that he doesn’t want war, but if Europe does, Russia is ready - and will defeat it. That’s as Ukrainian drones attacked their third Russian shadow fleet ship this week and Putin stated he will retaliate against Ukrainian shipping and those countries helping it, i.e., Europeans. There’s little middle ground between those two outcomes, but markets are assuming a geopolitical median.

Meanwhile, Europe bewails it “would have given almost anything for peace, but Beijing had a different calculus” - including siding with China vs. the US (where The Economist says ‘Trumpworld thinks Europe has betrayed the West’ – watch Macron in China for more on that ahead); and India, which the EU wants to build deeper ties with as a counterbalance, just ratified a strategic defence partnership with Russia.

The Honduran election currently has the centrist candidate whom Trump didn’t want to win ahead, promising fireworks(?) We are all waiting to see what happens in Venezuela. US lawmakers say they will force a vote on the War Powers Act if Trump attacks it, but the current -anti-terror designation may be workaround – and Trump just said any country trafficking drugs into US could be attacked. That includes a few famous names.

Trump signed a bill to deepen US-Taiwan ties, as the island’s opposition party blocked government plans to increase defence spending. That’s as tensions between Japan and China over PM Takaichi’s recent comments continue to remain high. Even the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between the US and Japan is being drawn in --China publicly rejecting it-- with potentially worrying parallels to the historical legalese heard around the Russia-Ukraine issue before February 2022. If peace treaties are no longer valid, borders can only be set by threat of or actual force.

That’s as a new Chinese naval flotilla, including an assault ship, is in the Philippines Sea and may be heading for Australia, the latter armed with dangerously high house prices. If you think markets are pricing for these kind of grey rhino risks --how?!-- ask your trader or broker what their view of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty is. I’m sure it will be enlightening.

In the Middle East, a new Israel – Hezbollah confrontation appears worryingly close. Whether that spreads to Iran remains to be seen: ‘optimists’ suggest it’s a story for 2026. Markets are better at pricing those kind of oil risks and seem relaxed so far.

In geoeconomics, floods in Thailand have paralyzed IT goods trade flows globally; US Treasury Secretary Bessent praised Bank Santander for pulling its credit lines from oil trader Gunvor following US claims that the firm, now with new leadership, was a ‘Kremlin Puppet’; Costco is suing the Trump admin for “full refund” on its tariffs, upping the ante; Macron wants to rebalance trade with China as it floods Europe with imports --how?-- as German firms are doubling down on their investments in China; China’s state media boasted its “dirt cheap” hypersonic missiles could upend global defence markets; and Russia said it’s ready to address India's concerns over their massive bilateral trade deficit – see how trade deals and defense pacts go together?

In the (political!) economy, Michael Dell donated $6.3bn for ‘Trump Accounts’ for children – patriotism, or akin to EM billionaires whose governments ‘encouraged’ them to ‘share the load’? The Trump admin also took a $150M stake in chip startup, a once shocking headline already becoming normalized. Yet overlooked by markets, because it isn’t a number on a Bloomberg screen, China's local government debt has reportedly risen to $18.9tn, implying total public debt to GDP is far above 200% and rising, vs. the US’ ≈100% and rising, with China’s private sector debt also around 200%, as in the US. That underlines *China’s structural* necessity to maintain capital controls and a vast, neo-mercantilist trade surplus. The FT touched on that recently; then it moved on to play with the next shiny bauble rather than nailing down the ensuing logical conclusions as principles for its flow of policy recommendations. But their deckchair has a wonderful rear view.

In (economic!) politics, two former EU political heavyweights, Mogherini and Sannino, are in custody over a fraud probe. The UK is mulling a ban on crypto cash in politics, which will put Reform UK’s Farage in the firing line; the UK’s now-headless Office of Budget Responsibility said it had warned the Treasury over budget ‘misconceptions’ (like a deficit being a surplus); and UK jury trials are to be scrapped for crimes with sentences of less than three years, reversing ancient precedent, to make the trial process 20% faster. In France. ‘Macron denies 'Ministry of Truth' plan in standoff with far right’ (Euractiv). In the US, a new immigration crackdown and perhaps a global travel ban loom. India’s government is demanding the installation of state apps on all smartphones; and ‘China looks to AI and big data to guard against Western values’ (SCMP), as Xi “tells Politburo that new technology should be applied to promote socialist ideology.” How do markets price for all the above – or do none matter(?)

To conclude, even if some deckchairs are collapsing, we can continue to sit comfortably on most of them for now. However, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be thinking about the direction of travel and what may lie ahead of us. It isn’t an iceberg per se, and there will be both upsides and downsides. Just don’t assume it will be plain sailing.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 13:25

Fed Regime-Change: Groupthink May Be Ending

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Starting in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, a profound change to the Fed’s liquidity-providing role in the capital markets was underway.  We can sum up the Fed regime change with a popular quip: The Fed has shifted from lender of last resort to the lender of only resort!

In our articles QE Is Coming and its follow-up, How The Fed Deals Liquidity, we discuss why the Fed has become the primary provider of liquidity since 2008 and the tools it uses to maintain ample liquidity in the markets. While that Fed regime change has been incredibly impactful on the financial markets, there is a growing possibility of another meaningful regime change that could prove equally impactful.

This article, like the two linked above, is dry. Still, investors today must understand that monetary policy has become a primary driver of liquidity, which in turn significantly influences asset prices. Without a clear understanding of what the Fed is doing and how it functions, your investment ideas, no matter how solid, can be flawed.

Groupthink Has Been The Fed Norm

The Fed’s monetary policy-setting group, the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), meets every six weeks to discuss the economy, financial markets, liquidity, and a host of other factors that help the Fed set monetary policy to meet its inflation and employment objectives.

After two days of data analysis, conversation, and debate, the FOMC’s voting members vote on whether to adjust monetary policy. Most often, the policy changes involve the Fed Funds Rate and or the monthly pace of QE or QT.

The committee is comprised as follows:

• Seven members of the Board of Governors- including the Chairman

• Four rotating regional Fed Presidents

• The President of the New York Fed

While there are debates and many divergent views expressed at the FOMC meetings, the published results always give the impression of agreement. This is evident in the meeting statement, which lists the members who voted for the monetary policy actions and those who dissented. The example below from the October 29, 2025, meeting shows that two of the twelve members dissented or voted against the prescribed policy actions.

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; and Christopher J. Waller. Voting against this action were Stephen I. Miran, who preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by 1/2 percentage point at this meeting, and Jeffrey R. Schmid, who preferred no change to the target range for the federal funds rate at this meeting.

Historical Dissents

As we shared above, there were two dissenting votes at the last meeting. On average, since 1936, 5% of members have cast dissenting votes per meeting. Since 2000, the most dissenting votes at a single meeting were three. On average, over the last 25 years, the odds are 50/50 that one member will dissent at each meeting.

The bottom line is that dissents occur with some regularity, but the votes for or against policy action are always a strong consensus. More simply, the Fed has been in a groupthink regime fro the last 100 years!

Consensus At The Fed

In the FOMC minutes, released three weeks after the meeting, we gain a better understanding of the debates that took place. It’s clear from these minutes that there are many divergent opinions. This should not be surprising, as the members come from different regions across the country and have diverse economic views. This has been the case since 1936, when the Fed began sharing the minutes.

While there may be many views on the economy and the right course for monetary policy, the graph above clearly shows that almost all Fed members coalesce around a single policy action. 

Quite often, the Fed Chair steers the FOMC toward presenting a consensus view.

Politics At The Fed

We argue that, despite its supposed independence from the executive branch, the Fed has always been political to some degree. Furthermore, we must assume that every Presidential nomination of a Fed member is primarily based on the nominee’s alignment with the President’s views.

Thus, it’s not shocking that Stephen Miran, Trump’s latest appointee, is arguing for aggressive rate cuts. Furthermore, Trump’s possible appointee to replace Lisa Cook and Chairman Powell when his term ends in May will most likely also hold dovish views.

While there is an infusion of dovish voters to join existing dovish members, there also remains a camp of hawkish voters. It appears that most of the dovish-hawkish standoff is a function of whether members are more concerned about keeping a lid on inflation (hawkish) or about preventing a worsening of the labor market (dovish).

However, we offer that the debate may be becoming political as well. Is the Fed morphing into entities like the Supreme Court or Congress that are politically motivated?

In other words, are some dovish members not as concerned about the labor markets as they appear, and instead pushing for a more accommodative policy to help Trump achieve his economic goals? Conversely, might some hold hawkish opinions, not because they fear inflation, but because they disagree with the President’s policies?

Is Consensus Dead?

If, as we postulate, the Fed is becoming more politically divided, might the Fed Chairman be losing the ability to present a group consensus? Interestingly, the odds of a rate cut at the next Fed meeting have been floating between 25% and 85%. Those odds have been shifting as various Fed members have weighed in on whether they may cut rates at the next meeting. Currently, there is a split between those wanting to cut rates and those dissenting from another cut in December. A few members also appear undecided. If the Chairman is unable to get the members to reach a consensus, it’s quite possible there could be four, five, or even six dissenters at the next meeting.

Our Take On Dissents

Historically, as we noted earlier, the Chairman gets the FOMC to form a strong publicly facing consensus. Doing so gives investors, consumers, and business leaders a false sense of confidence that the Fed is fully aware of what is happening in the economy and that it has the right policy prescription. 

We welcome dissent at the Fed. We welcome change. Groupthink, as managed by one person, the Chair, has led to significant policy errors. While the Fed will still make errors in the future, investors, business leaders, and consumers will at least be better versed in other policy opinions. For instance, a vote with multiple dissenting votes signals that the Fed is not confident in its views or policies. While that may make some uneasy, it’s better to recognize their stance than to believe something that isn’t true. Conversely, in an era of multiple dissenting votes, a complete consensus should lead investors to think the Fed has strong confidence in its views and policies.

Summary

As we said earlier, we welcome a regime change at the Fed. We want 12 autonomous FOMC members deliberating and voting on Fed policy. We don’t like the opinion of one person, the Chairman, dictating the views and policies of the Fed.

A new Fed regime consisting of 12 voting Fed members, voicing their own opinions and casting votes on what they think, not what the Chairman wants, would be a welcome change, albeit it might introduce short-term volatility in the financial markets.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 12:45

Europe Accuses Putin Of Faking Peace Talks With Trump Envoys

After the American delegation sent by President Trump met some 5 hours with President Putin and his team in Moscow Tuesday night, but with no significant progress made (and with some observers declaring it a 'failure'), some European officials are trying to have an 'I told you so' moment.

Ukrainian and European officials on Wednesday have alleged Putin is faking a desire to achieve peace, and is intentionally wasting Washington's time while prolonging the war and intensifying strikes on the battlefield.

For example, Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha declared immediately after the Moscow discussions that Putin should "stop wasting the world's time." The Zelensky government, it should be noted, has also been quietly frustrated with the White House for largely sidelining its long-running objection to territorial concessions. But the US plan is truly "new" in that it offers Russia de facto control of land in the Donbass and Crimea.

Getty Images

UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper voiced similar criticism, saying Putin "should end the bluster and the bloodshed and be ready to come to the table and to support a just and lasting peace."

Baltic and northern European states have continued in their rhetoric challenging the Kremlin, with Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna responding, "What we see is that Putin has not changed any course. He's pushing more aggressively on the battlefield." The top diplomat said, "It's pretty obvious that he doesn't want to have any kind of peace."

And Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said similarly, "So far we haven't seen any concessions from the side of the aggressor, which is Russia, and I think the best confidence-building measure would be to start with a full ceasefire."

While the Kremlin has called the Tuesday Moscow talks "constructive" - it conceded that little actual progress was made toward a deal, given Russia is demanding nothing less than full legal and international recognition of the territories under its control. 

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte meanwhile is calling on allies to ensure Ukraine is in its strongest possible position as negotiations proceed. Of course this involves flooding Kiev with more money and weapons. "The peace talks are ongoing. That's good," Rutte said.

"But at the same time, we have to make sure that whilst they take place and we are not sure when they will end, that Ukraine is in the strongest possible position to keep the fight going, to fight back against the Russians. But also in the strongest possible position when peace talks really get to a point where they sit at the table," he added.

More allegations of feigning interest in a peace process out of Western pundits:

Putin Meets With Witkoff and Kushner for Nearly Five Hours and the two sides did not reach any specific compromises, an aide to President Vladimir V. Putin said, as the United States pushes a plan to end the war in Ukraine.

Let me translate for you what this means. There was… https://t.co/0z7KAlRF5t

— Sir William Browder KCMG (@Billbrowder) December 3, 2025

Meanwhile mutual strikes on energy infrastructure continues to escalate. President Putin has also warned his military is readying to expand strikes on Ukrainian ports, in retaliation for a spate of drone attacks on tankers transporting Russian oil to global markets.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 12:25

DOJ Charges Afghan National Over Online Threats To Build Bomb, Kill Americans

Authored by Arjun Singh via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice has indicted an Afghan national residing in Fort Worth, Texas, for allegedly making online threats to construct an explosive and kill U.S. citizens using it.

Mohammad Dawood Alokozay, 30, was arrested by the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Texas Department of Public Safety on Nov. 30. A statement from the Department of Justice indicated that he was charged with “transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce,” which violates 18 U.S. Code, Section 875(c), for making threats on social media platforms, specifically TikTok, Facebook, and X.

“We have zero tolerance for violence and threats of violence to kill American citizens and others like those allegedly made by this individual,” said Ryan Raybould, the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, whose office is prosecuting the case.

Alokozay on Nov. 23, while speaking in the Dari language, allegedly told two other men during a video stream on social media that he would build a bomb in his vehicle. He also allegedly described in detail bomb making techniques used by the Taliban in Afghanistan, who he described as “dear” to him. During his remarks, Alokozay allegedly stated that he intended to conduct a suicide attack on Americans, and that he was “not afraid of deportation or getting killed.”

The Epoch Times was unable to obtain a copy of Alokozay’s indictment, which is currently under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. If convicted, Alokozay faces a maximum of five years in prison for the crime.

Alokozay’s immigration status in the United States, and whether the federal government will place him in removal proceedings, has not been publicly disclosed. Currently, Afghanistan is ruled by the Taliban, a designated foreign terrorist organization, to which the United States has not conducted any publicized removal operations.

Normally, in cases where the country of origin of a deportee may present a risk to the deportee’s life, that person may apply for “withholding of removal” under Section 241(b)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protections under the Convention Against Torture. These statuses, if granted by an immigration judge, prevent a person from being removed to their home country, though they may be removed to a willing third country.

Since Nov. 26, when one National Guard service member was shot and killed and another critically wounded in Washington, allegedly by Afghan national Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the U.S. government has increased scrutiny of existing Afghan nationals and other citizens of “high-risk” nations who reside within the country.

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 12:05

James Boasberg Snubs Senate Hearing On 'Rogue Judges'

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Two of the federal judges facing impeachment threats refused to attend a Wednesday Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on “rogue judges.” 

James Boasberg and Deborah Boardman, district judges in Washington and Maryland, respectively, told the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts that they would not appear over concerns about the separation of powers and judicial ethics. 

Their refusal was delivered through a Nov. 12 letter sent by U.S. Judge Robert Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to Sen. Ted Cruz, who chairs the subcommittee. 

Conrad claimed that allowing the judges to testify could violate ethics rules and “encroach upon the separation of powers,” according to the Daily Caller. 

He cited judicial rule Canon 3A(6), which forbids judges from testifying about matters they have decided or that may be pending before them. 

“The commentary to this provision explains that the ‘admonition against public comment about the merits of a pending or impending matter continues until the appellate process is complete,’” Conrad added. 

Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Judge Robert Conrad cited part of the code of conduct stating a judge "should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court."

— Katelynn Richardson (@katesrichardson) December 2, 2025

Cruz scheduled the hearing to examine possible impeachment proceedings against federal judges accused of overstepping their authority.

Boasberg is one of those judges, Republicans argue. He is facing impeachment threats from Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas,  

Gill filed the articles of impeachment accusing Boasberg of abusing his “judicial authority” for approving Biden-era search warrants targeting Republican lawmakers and other conservative organizations part of the Jan. 6 investigation. 

“Judge Boasberg was an accomplice in the egregious Arctic Frost scandal where he equipped the Biden DOJ to spy on Republican senators,” Gill wrote in a statement. 

“His lack of integrity makes him clearly unfit for the gavel.” 

Boardman is also facing impeachment efforts, this time from Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, over her lenient eight-year sentence for the convicted would-be assassin of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.  

Boardman cited the attacker’s declared transgender identity to justify sparing him from a harsher penalty. 

“Boardman unequivocally based this weak sentence on the attempted assassin’s ‘gender identity,’ as the attempted assassin expressed that he views himself as a woman,” Roy wrote in a separate statement. “Instead of doing what the Judiciary calls for and sentencing this man to the base 30-year sentence recommended by the Department of Justice, Judge Boardman purposefully allowed this man off easy.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 11:25

WTI Holds Gains As Cushing 'Tank Bottoms' Loom; US Crude Production At Record High

Oil prices are higher this morning after API's report showed crude inventories fell last week, while negotiations to end Russia's war on Ukraine failed to reach an agreement.

Prices have stuck in a narrow range in recent weeks as geopolitical concerns have countered rising supply as OPEC+ returned 2.6-million barrels of production cuts to market amid increasing production outside of the cartel.

But, a lack of progress in U.S.-led negotiations to reach a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia and the Trump Administration's military build up off Venezuela continue to command a risk premium for the commodity.

"Traders weighed prospects for an end to the war in Ukraine while watching for Trump's next moves on Venezuela. Ahead of today's EIA report, the API said US crude stockpiles rose by 2.5 million barrels last week. Overall, Brent and WTI remain confined to tight ranges as ample global supply continues to offset geopolitical risk," Saxo Bank noted.

Will the official data confirm API's draw?

API

• Crude -2.48mm

• Cushing -89k

• Gasoline +3.1mm

• Distillates +2.88mm

DOE

• Crude +574k

• Cushing -457k

• Gasoline +4.518mm - biggest build since May

• Distillates +2.059mm

The official report was delayed but once it hit, it showed a small crude build (as opposed to API's reported draw). Products saw big builds (Gasoline largest weekly add since May) and Cushing stocks fell for the 4th straight week...

Source: Bloomberg

Cushing's ongoing draws leave stocks near 'tank bottoms' once again...

Source: Bloomberg

US Crude production hovers near record highs despite the rapid decline in rig counts...

Source: Bloomberg

WTI is holding gains after the delayed data...

Source: Bloomberg

Geopolitical tensions are keeping the market jittery and adding a risk premium to prices, partly countering concerns about a surplus. That includes US rhetoric against Venezuela, with President Donald Trump suggesting the Pentagon will soon start targeting drug cartels with strikes on land.

Senate hawks calling for a complete Venezuelan overthrow further fuel oil’s upside risk. Eschewing the term “regime change”, Rick Scott (R–Fla.) told ZeroHedge that he’d like to Venezuelan President Maduro in handcuffs.

”I’d like [Maduro] to be arrested for selling drugs into this country,” Scott said today. “That’s not ‘regime change’. He is not the president of Venezuela… there was an election. He lost the election.”

On the Russian front, Goldman sees little change in markets following the peace talks.

“The Brent crude price remained roughly unchanged in the low $60s over the last week as Russia-Ukraine peace talks continue,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. analysts including Yulia Grigsby said.

“Oil markets and prediction markets do not appear to price a large probability of a near-term peace agreement and removal of the sanctions on Russia oil.”

Grigsby also noted that overall levels of Russian oil exports have remained robust, even after US penalties on Lukoil and Rosneft, as sales rapidly pivoted to non-sanctioned producers.

On the bright side, the broadly weaker trend on crude oil prices has dragged gas (pump) prices down to their lowest since May 2021...

Source: Bloomberg

While it's not exactly 'drill, baby, drill', it's certainly what Trump wanted (the question is, will the lower price push shale producers to cut production... and round and round we go).

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 11:18

Today, in the Real Estate Newsletter: Asking Rents Soft Year-over-year

Brief excerpt:

Another monthly update on rents.

Tracking rents is important for understanding the dynamics of the housing market. Slower household formation and increased supply (more multi-family completions) has kept asking rents under pressure.

More recently, immigration policy has become a negative for rentals.

Apartment List: Asking Rent Growth -1.1% Year-over-year ...

The national median rent fell 1.0% in November, and now stands at $1,367. This was the fourth consecutive month-over-month decline, as we’re now in the midst of the rental market’s off-season. It’s likely that we will close out the year with an additional modest rent decline in December.

Realtor.com: 27th Consecutive Month with Year-over-year Decline in Rents

October 2025 marks the 27th straight month of year-over-year rent decline for 0-2 bedroom properties since trend data began in 2020. Asking rents dipped by $29, or -1.7%, year over year.

There is much more in the article.

Trump Confirms Biden's Autopen Documents, Orders, & Pardons Are Void

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he has nullified all documents, proclamations, executive orders, memorandums, and contracts signed by autopen during President Joe Biden’s term.

“Any and all Documents, Proclamations, Executive Orders, Memorandums, or Contracts, signed by Order of the now infamous and unauthorized ‘AUTOPEN,’ within the Administration of Joseph R. Biden Jr., are hereby null, void, and of no further force or effect,” Trump wrote in a social media post.

“Anyone receiving ‘Pardons,’ ‘Commutations,’ or any other Legal Document so signed, please be advised that said Document has been fully and completely terminated, and is of no Legal effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The declaration follows Trump’s Nov. 28 announcement that he was revoking all executive orders signed by autopen during the Biden administration.

“The Autopen is not allowed to be used if approval is not specifically given by the President of the United States,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Trump alleged the documents were signed illegally.

“The Radical Left Lunatics circling Biden around the beautiful Resolute Desk in the Oval Office took the Presidency away from him,” Trump posted. “Joe Biden was not involved in the Autopen process and, if he says he was, he will be brought up on charges of perjury.”

The autopen, which uses a real pen and ink to mechanically replicate a president’s signature, can be used to sign official documents, but the president must direct the signing of each document or bill, according to the Office of Legal Counsel.

According to some legal scholars, U.S. presidents may revoke previously issued executive orders. However, revoking pardons may be unconstitutional and could face roadblocks, experts told the Epoch Times.

The U.S. House Committee on Oversight, led by Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.) published a report in October detailing an investigation into the Biden administration’s use of autopen signatures.

The federal probe found senior White House officials “abused the autopen and a lax chain-of-command policy to effect executive actions” and failed to provide documentation to prove the documents were authorized.

The committee stated it found evidence that Biden’s White House staff concealed his diminishing mental and physical condition intentionally.

“The Committee has found that there was, in fact, a cover-up of the president’s cognitive decline and that there is no record demonstrating President Biden himself made all of the executive decisions that were attributed to him,” the committee wrote in the report. “The authority to grant pardons is not provided to the president’s inner circle.”

Several senior advisors and staff refused to provide testimony during the investigation for fear of incriminating themselves.

A photo of former President Biden's autopen signature (C) on the new White House Presidential Wall of Fame on Sept. 26, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

In a Truth Social post, Trump claimed 92 percent of documents signed during Biden’s presidency were signed by autopen.

During his presidency, Biden issued 4,245 acts of clemency—more than any other president—and 162 executive orders.

Biden’s acts of clemency consisted of 80 pardons and 4,165 commutations. While the commutation total topped all other presidents since McKinley, who left office in 1901, the 80 pardons were topped by several other presidents including Trump in his first term (144), President Barack Obama (212), and President George W. Bush (189).

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 10:15

'Sustained Resilience': US Services Surveys Mixed In November

Following the disappointment on the Manufacturing PMI side (both S&P Global and ISM seeing their surveys decline in November), US Services surveys were more mixed in the face of 'strong' hard data (that has been largely absent due to the shutdown).

• S&P Global US Services PMI dropped from 54.8 to 54.1 in November (lowest since June and notably worse than the flash print of 55.0)

• ISM US Services PMI rose from 52.4 to 52.6, solidly better than the 52.0 expected.

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood was also mixed (completely opposite) news with ISM seeing Prices Paid dropping bigly (S&P Global seeing it rise), ISM seeing new orders decline (S&P Global seeing improvement) and ISM seeing employment still contracting (S&P Global sees 'solid increase' in employment)...

The S&P Global US Composite PMI posted 54.2 in November. That was little changed overall on October’s 54.6 and consistent with trend growth of the US private sector economy.

Similar rates of expansion were recorded across the manufacturing and service sectors. Latest data showed the strongest growth in new work for three months, which helped support a solid increase in employment. Meanwhile, input price inflation accelerated to a four-month high whilst output charges also rose at a stronger pace.

“The US service sector has reported another strong expansion in November, with demand for services rising at the fastest rate seen so far this year," according to Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

"Together with a robust increase in output reported by the manufacturing sector, the survey indicates that the economy is so far expanding at a 2.5% annualized GDP growth rate in the fourth quarter."

Supportive financial conditions, including lower interest rates and the equity market gains seen this year, are helping drive the sustained resilience of the economy, with Williamson noting a further surge in financial services activity reported in November.

Tariff fears remain top of mind...

“Consumer and business services are also continuing to expand, but report pressure on customer demand from affordability issues in particular. Worryingly, prices charged for services rose at an increased rate in November as firms sought to pass on higher costs, in turn often linked to tariffs.

“The concern is that rising prices could deter further rate cuts, in turn dampening the financial services expansion which has been doing much of the heavy lifting in terms of the sustained economic expansion in recent months.

But there is some optimism...

“More encouragingly, November saw an upturn in business expectations of growth over the year ahead compared to October, though this in part merely reflected some relief at the ending of the government shutdown, and some of this improved sentiment appears to have already faded towards the end of November.”

Overall, it's choose your own adventure...

...with something for both the doves (weakening survey headline data) and the hawks (economy still expanding and tariff-driven inflation fears high).

Tyler Durden Wed, 12/03/2025 - 10:07