Zelensky Continues To Oppose Wartime Democracy Amidst Escalated Election Demands

Authored by John Weeks via Antiwar.com,

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is facing mounting pressure to hold elections. The Ukrainian leader was elected to a five-year term in 2019, which expired in May 2024.

Last week, Ukraine's former defense minister Mykhailo Fedorov publicly called for elections, breaking what has been characterized as a "wartime taboo" within the nation's elite. He continued to demand elections over the weekend and also directly accused the Defense Ministry of corruption.

Fedorov is not the first high-profile Ukrainian figure to call for elections. Back in 2024, Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko denounced Zelensky and called him an "autocrat" for refusing to hold elections. But Fedorov is the first figure to have served within the upper echelons of the national government to publicly endorse the restoration of democracy.

On Sunday, Zelensky released comments slamming Fedorov's recommendation as a threat to Ukrainian national security. "I believe that if we want to destroy the country, then during such a war we can move in the selection of elections," Zelensky said.

While Zelensky has portrayed wartime elections as an existential threat to all of Ukraine, he also said he would be open to elections if the nation's allies secured "specific conditions" that would allow all military personnel and displaced civilians, millions of people, to participate. This pledge undid the myth that Ukraine is forbidden to hold wartime elections by its own constitution under material law. It is also such an unlikely scenario; Zelensky appears open to democracy while safely shielded from it. If elections were held, he would lose.

The challenge from Fedorov is significant because the 35-year-old was the youngest minister of defense in Ukraine's history, and his firing last month triggered protests throughout the country. Despite having no military experience, the former tech entrepreneur was viewed as revolutionizing Ukraine's drone warfare. He only served for a few months before a rift with Gen. Oleksandr Syrskyi, commander of Ukraine's armed forces at the time, prompted Zelensky to fire him.

After protests broke out following Fedorov's sacking, Zelensky tried to placate the people by firing Syrskyi as well. This has not turned down the temperature, as protestors want Fedorov reinstated.

The anger is understandable. Zelensky and his administration are keeping the nation at war, and there is no end in sight. The war has been the justification for martial law, and the martial law has been the justification for the temporary, indefinite suspension of democracy.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 06:30

Why Data Centers Favor On-Site Gas Power

Most data center developers opting for on-site gas power say that they see it as a “bridge” solution until a grid connection is secured. Yet economics may favor keeping those assets running even after grid power becomes available.

A recent BloombergNEF analysis shows the marginal cost of operating an on-site gas plant may be below industrial electricity tariffs, making continued generation from on-site assets the cheaper option in many cases. 

Marginal generation costs depend on fuel prices and variable operating expenses. BloombergNEF modeled the marginal cost of operating engines, turbines and fuel cells at a mid-scenario gas price of $3.97 per million British thermal units. Gas engines, such as ones manufactured by Wartsila and INNIO, have the highest marginal cost, at $43.2 per megawatt-hour (MWh). Fuel cells, most prominently procured from Bloom Energy, are the cheapest to continue running, at $21.5/MWh, benefiting from high thermal efficiencies and the lowest variable operational cost.  

Securing a grid connection does not necessarily make on-site generation redundant. Developers can continue using gas plants to supply most of a facility’s electricity while relying on the grid for reliability, reserve them for backup or peak demand, or in some cases export electricity to the grid.

The optimal operating strategy will depend on the relative cost of grid electricity, fuel prices and the marginal cost of operating the gas plant. More efficient technologies such as fuel cells and combined-cycle gas turbines are likely to be dispatched more frequently because of their lower running costs.  

The contracted electricity price will ultimately determine how often developers rely on the grid. Industrial electricity tariffs are forecast to average $88.6/MWh in 2027, while wholesale power prices are expected to range from $24.4/MWh to $74.7/MWh, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Developers with access to low electricity prices may increasingly shift demand to the grid, while those paying the highest industrial tariffs could continue to favor on-site generation even after their grid connection is in place.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 05:45

When Paris Went Hungry Under Government Food Controls

Authored by Daniel J. Smith via The Daily Economy,

How does Paris get fed? Frédéric Bastiat famously explained in Economic Sophisms (1845) how market exchange reliably provisioned the (then) million people of Paris with agricultural produce from the countryside that they were able to enjoy "peaceful slumbers...not disturbed for a single instant...."

In stark contrast, Bastiat predicted that there would be "much suffering within the walls of Paris - poverty, despair, perhaps starvation..." if a presumptuous minister decided to replace the market with their own decision-making for what "should be produced, transported, exchanged and consumed...."

We can appreciate Bastiat's observation about the miraculous functioning of the market even more when we look at a time when Paris actually went hungry.

France's Experiment in Forced Provisioning

Leading up to the French Revolution in 1789, France found itself in a precarious fiscal position. It had accumulated crippling debt from the Seven Years' War and its support for the American colonies during their War of Independence. This heavy debt burden left the kingdom woefully unprepared to withstand the economic shocks that followed.

Economic shock came in the form of the eruption of the Laki volcano in Iceland in 1783, which contributed to climatic disruptions and poor harvests in France in the years that followed. These problems were compounded by a severe hailstorm in 1788 that devastated crops and livestock, raising prices, especially for bread, which was the main staple at the time. Increased demand for grain to support the military and its draft animals, when France declared war on Austria in 1792 (followed by war with Great Britain), pushed prices even higher. When France implemented a draft that drew agricultural workers into the military and then began requisitioning agricultural horses and wagons, the supply of grain was further reduced.

Henry Bourne, writing a two-part article in the Journal of Political Economy in 1919 about this era, notes that in the fall of 1792, "One of the longest and most important debates [of the National Convention] was upon the best method of insuring a supply of bread at a reasonable price." This was a problem that especially loomed over the major city of Paris. Bourne argues that the threat of starvation fueled not only the French Revolution, but the mob mentality and interventionism that followed. As Bourne writes, "People, in a panic because they do not know where next week's bread, meat, and coal are to be found, are not likely to apply the rules of evidence to every rumor." The French clamored for state intervention on the "fixed idea that dearness and scarcity were the result of speculation" rather than underlying economic conditions.

Transporting grain became a risky enterprise as mobs sprang up to seize it, further decreasing the supply of grain to Paris. To add insult to injury, the transportation of grain to major cities was further suppressed by inflation, which made the issued assignats unappealing to country farmers.

The National Convention and the Paris Commune turned to "a series of ventures in price-fixing and food control" to solve the problem. Bourne notes that "price-fixing became one of the characteristic features of the Reign of Terror." In 1793, the National Convention imposed a maximum price, or what economists today call a price ceiling, on grain. In a futile attempt to warn of the potential consequences, Pierre Vergniaud, who later that year was executed under the accusation of the radical Jacobin Maximilien Robespierre, urged that "If you destroy commerce, you decree famine."

French attempts to deny the economic reality reflected by market prices, by attempting to suppress them, resulted in severe shortages and long lines.

"The scheme not only failed to encourage the farmer, it threatened him with ruin," Bourne noted. "His expenses for tools, draft animals, and wages were steadily rising, but his profits were cut down, with the prospect of further losses every succeeding month."

But politically savvy politicians blamed these disappointing outcomes on greed and used them to justify further interventions backed by the threat of imprisonment and death. The National Convention created a Commission of Subsistence and Provisioning to be the "Food Director" of France. Swarms of officials were commissioned to survey farmers' inventories and fields in an attempt to enable government officials to redirect grain to where it was needed. Rules were issued detailing the precise percentage of bran that millers could extract and even dictated the one type of bread that would be allowed. A bread card rationing system was created but was abused as families failed to report the death of family members to continue receiving the same allotment. Bourne reports that in 1794, rations fell to a single pound of bread for each laborer and three-fourths of a pound for others, and that "it was practically impossible to obtain meat, butter, eggs, oil, and other articles of food commonly regarded as necessary," as price ceilings were extended to these items as well.

Officials attempted to appeal to the higher motives of the people, telling them that they were "brothers and that they should help" even if it meant turning over the grain needed for their family, for storage for future use, or even the seed necessary to plant the next year's crop. This proved insufficient, however, so the officials eventually turned to force.

Bourne writes that "An attempt was made to provide for Paris by compelling every farmer to furnish within twenty-four hours sixteen bushels of wheat for each hide of land." French dragoons were soon released upon the countryside to "scour the country" for food and to arrest any suspected hoarders. As Bourne notes, "merchants were thrown into prison upon the accusation of the first intriguer who shouted out his suspicions at a popular society. The local revolutionary committees acted as judges without appeal. To escape a similar fate the other merchants hastened to dispose of their merchandise and did not restock."

If a farmer had grain in the field but no laborers to gather it, laborers were drafted by local authorities. Millers and bakers in Paris were drafted and forbidden from abandoning their work without sufficient notice. Eventually, the National Convention even attempted to extend maximum price laws to the wages of laborers as well.

Despite the substantial and systematic efforts of the National Convention and the boards of the separate departments of France, Parisians and much of the rest of France, went hungry under government control. In Cahors, people "were so poorly fed that they were falling in the street from sheer weakness." In Nord, "grain of every sort disappeared from the markets..." The people of Paris would stand "with famished eyes" for hours in line "only to be told when their turn came that nothing was left." As Bourne concludes, "If the maximum laws were meant to save the common people from want and wretchedness, they failed."

Bastiat's Market-Fed Paris

It is unclear whether Bastiat, when writing in the 1840s about the remarkable way in which free markets coordinated the efforts of countless individuals to feed Paris every day, was implicitly contrasting this outcome with the French Revolution's earlier rejection of market exchange. He almost certainly knew that revolutionary France had experienced severe food shortages and government price controls, making the contrast between the two episodes striking even if he did not intend it.

As Bastiat stressed, government officials could not replace the information and incentives provided by market prices. Orders, price controls, requisitions, forced sales, and even forced labor failed to feed Paris. When the National Convention tried to do so, it produced exactly the outcome Bastiat had predicted more than half a century later: not peaceful slumbers, but long lines, empty markets, and widespread hunger. Notably, these outcomes began to recede as the Commission was abandoned and markets were restored.

Dr. Daniel J. Smith is the Director of the Political Economy Research Institute and Associate Professor of Economics in the Jones College of Business at Middle Tennessee State University. His academic research and policy work uses Austrian and public choice economics to analyze private and public governance institutions.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 05:00

ICE Begins Deporting Illegal Immigrants To Dangerous African Countries

Imagine entering the US illegally and enjoying the fruits of the American economy for years, only to wake up one day in the darkest of Africa in a country known for cannibalism?  The strategy might be ugly, but it might also be ingenious.  

Last year, illegal Cuban immigrant Yasmany Moreno de Armas was working and living in Florida. He's now in the Central African Republic, after the Trump administration sent him and dozens of deportees to the deeply impoverished and conflict-ridden nation.

The 31-year-old said he only learned the U.S. government was deporting him to Africa after he arrived there in late July, alongside detainees from countries across the globe, including Ecuador, Honduras, Serbia, Russia and Vietnam. 

"We cannot leave, we don't have documents and we're suffering and missing our families, in a continent we don't know..."

Armas claims he committed no crime, but he committed the crime of invading US borders without citizenship.  The ongoing narrative from the political left is that this particular crime somehow doesn't count.

Illegals shipped to Africa are appealing to the media to plead their case, though there's not a whole lot anyone can do about their situation.  Under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) the US government has the right to deport illegal migrants with expediency.  And technically, ICE isn't required to take these migrants back to the countries they originally came from.  

Cuban immigrant Yasmany Moreno de Armas says ICE never told him he was being deported to the Central African Republic, a deeply impoverished country that the State Department warns Americans not to visit for any reason due to widespread violence.

The conflict-ridden country is… pic.twitter.com/oGKF4ohXnd

— CBS News (@CBSNews) August 23, 2026

The US established an agreement with more stable countries like Liberia in West Africa to accept illegal migrant deportations over a year ago.  Liberia has recently accepted over 1200 of these deportations.  However, ICE and DHS are branching out to other countries in Africa that are not so stable.   

The Central African Republic has a history of extreme sectarian violence.  It also has a long history of cannibalism.  European explorers noted the cannibal practices of the Azande tribes in the 19th Century and the habit has continued into present day, with warlords in the region famously committing cannibalistic acts against their enemies. 

The seemingly random nature of these deportations and the severity of them might sound like unorganized brutality, but if we ponder it for a moment, it's actually highly effective.  Any illegal migrant from anywhere could win the African lottery; no one is guaranteed a ride home.  Therefore, it would be smarter for migrants to self deport and ensure they end up in a place they're familiar with.   

In other words, as news spreads that the US is dumping illegals in the middle of the worst countries in Africa, self deportations could skyrocket and ICE won't be required to hunt these people down in the streets.  It's brilliant.

Appeals to sympathy are having less and less effect as the political left continues to fail to drum up any substantial public opposition to deportations.  In fact, many Americans feel that the sooner illegal migrants are removed from the country the sooner the US can get back to normal business.  

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 04:15

US Removes Syria, Including Al-Nusra Front, From Its List Of Terrorism Sponsors

Following a decade-and-a-half of a Washington-led full economic siege of the Syrian state, and after a fierce CIA-backed proxy war (Timber Sycamore) to oust Assad over that same period, this week has witnessed the huge milestone of the United States finally removing Syria from its state sponsors of terrorism list.

The designation itself had stretched back several decades, and it placed major hurdles in the way of international investment, but with the Monday move by the State Department many of the related sanctions have now been eased.

Jabat Al-Nusra, including the current US-backed President of Syria (center). Via Orient News TV/EPA

"Today’s action will help foster additional investment in Syria to promote political and economic stability," Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said, signaling new US efforts to help the war-ravaged country recover.

Of course, this came only after it was 'mission accomplished' in terms of overthrowing the secular Ba'ath government of Bashar al-Assad. He fled the country in December 2024, as Jolani's al-Qaeda linked militant group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham entered Damascus, and since then there have been widespread reports of an 'Islamization' of the capital and various other cities and towns. The first year of Jolani's rule witnessed thousands of religious minorities kidnapped or slaughtered - with Alawites and Druze particularly targeted, but also many Christians.

The whole population was brought to its knees by the long-running sanctions, resulting in runaway inflation and soaring food prices, as wages remained stagnant - also as petrol became hard to come by (and as US soldiers occupied Syria's eastern oil and gas fields which previously met domestic fuel needs).

The delisting exposes an ultra-ironic and deeply awkward reality: Al Nusra Front, which is Syrian Al Qaeda (and was founded by the self-declared president Ahmed al-Sharaa, aka Jolani) is no longer deemed a terror organization. According to the NY Times:

The removal of the state sponsor of terror designation on Monday came after a U.S. congressional review process and after Syria joined the Global Coalition to Defeat the Islamic State, according to the State Department. The United States also revoked the terrorism designation for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a rebel group that was headed by Mr. al-Sharaa and that was previously known as the Al Nusra Front, the State Department said.

It also once again highlights that when Trump on multiple occasions met President Sharaa, he was literally palling around with with an officially designated terrorist (and who until recently had a $10 million FBI bounty on his head).

It wasn't just the US which supported jihadist groups seeking the overthrow of Assad, but Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE also played a big role (and Israel too at times admitted its support).

Saudi Arabia is among those welcoming the sanctions relief news on Tuesday. Its foreign ministry congratulated the Syrian government and people, expressing hope for security, stability and prosperity.

Can't make this up: Top Syrian envoy to the United States once kidnapped Americans for Nusra Front/HTS...

My interview with the Syrian chargé d'affaires to the US back when he was a member of Jabhat al-Nusra. pic.twitter.com/g0NSaH1WUp

— Lindsey Snell (@LindseySnell) July 28, 2026

Syria had been on the State Sponsor of Terrorism for 47 years. So essentially the US waged a near half-century 'long war' for regime change against Bashar and his father Hafez al-Assad before him.

As for the lifting of sanctions, they ultimately hit the common populace the hardest - whether they be Christians, Muslims, Alawites or Druze - and so at the very least hopefully normal people can have some relief going forward.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/26/2026 - 02:45

Normal Brits Are Unwittingly Funding Pro-Illegal Migrant Charities

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Every week millions of ordinary Brits buy a National Lottery ticket hoping for a life-changing win. What most never realise is that a chunk of that money has been systematically channelled into pro-migrant activist charities that push open borders and far-left ideology.

A GB News exclusive has revealed that the National Lottery has handed more than £140 million in donations to these organisations.

The figure draws on the Lottery's own Good Causes data showing over 2,500 projects and organisations have collectively received more than £143 million to support refugees since 1994, alongside a detailed five-year audit of Community Fund grants that identified £114.7 million flowing into refugee, asylum and migrant projects between July 2021 and June 2026.

EXCLUSIVE: 'When you buy your lottery ticket every week, were you aware that millions of pounds were going to left-wing migrant activist charities?'@MartinDaubney.

? Freeview 236, Sky 512, Virgin 604
?? Become a Friend of GB News: https://t.co/KHGzBF2vMr pic.twitter.com/4h2yHq4RZU

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 24, 2026

Presenter Martin Daubney put it bluntly on air: "When you buy your lottery ticket every week, were you aware that millions of pounds were going to left-wing migrant activist charities?"

Commentator Rafe Heydel-Mankoo went further, describing the situation as institutional capture. "We're talking about the capture of these institutions by far-left ideology that should have no place in the charitable world."

'We're talking about the capture of these institutions by far-left ideology that should have no place in the charitable world.'

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo fumes as a GB News exclusive reveals the National Lottery has given more than £140million in donations to pro-migrant charities. pic.twitter.com/eFyMPNxJt9

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 24, 2026

The recipients are not neutral soup kitchens. Among the largest beneficiaries in the recent audit were Refugee Action (£3.21 million), the British Refugee Council (£2.97 million), the Scottish Refugee Council (£1.75 million), Task Force Trust / Action Asylum (£1.62 million) and the Refugee and Migrant Centre (£1.10 million).

Smaller but telling grants went to groups running yoga and English classes for refugee women, comedy workshops branded "Comedy Asylum," alpaca encounters led by asylum-seeker women, and projects explicitly framed around anti-racism and the "fundamental right to move."

Refugee Action's own language is unambiguous. One statement captured in the coverage declares the goal of building "a future rooted in the fundamental right to move, underpinned by a commitment to anti-racism." The Scottish Refugee Council has pushed MSPs to "detoxify" the immigration debate. These are political positions dressed up as charity.

The timing of the spending is striking. Funding identified in the audit ran at £16.1 million in 2021/22, rose, then jumped sharply to £43.3 million in 2024/25 alone - more than double the earlier annual figures - before adding another £19.6 million in the most recent period. London and the North West alone accounted for more than £43 million of the total.

This is public money in all but name. Roughly 23 pence of every pound spent on a National Lottery ticket goes to charitable causes. The distributing bodies are public institutions with obligations of political neutrality. Yet year after year the cash has flowed disproportionately toward organisations whose core mission is to expand and defend mass migration at a time when Channel crossings, hotel costs, crime and community tensions remain at crisis levels.

The irony is impossible to ignore, given the organised theft of charity clothing banks across Britain and Ireland.

Migrants and organised groups have been emptying donation bins in broad daylight, selling the clothes at car boot sales or shipping them abroad, and fly-tipping the rest. Charities that depend on those donations to fund genuine local need have lost revenue while police often treat the thefts with shrugs about "need."

So the same communities that see their donated clothes stolen by migrants are, through their lottery tickets, helping bankroll the activist infrastructure that campaigns for still more arrivals. The circle is complete: public generosity is extracted at both ends.

National Lottery Good Causes material celebrates the funding as life-changing support for people forced to flee. In practice a significant portion has gone to groups that treat borders themselves as the problem and British public opinion as something to be managed or "detoxified."

The Charity Commission guidance even notes that charities may engage in political activity where it advances their purposes - an opening many of these organisations have driven a coach and horses through.

British families struggling with the cost of living, veterans' charities, children's hospices and community groups serving the indigenous population receive a fraction of the attention. Players who thought their tickets were supporting Olympic athletes, heritage projects or local youth clubs have instead been underwriting an ideological project they never voted for.

The Lottery is currently under public review of its Good Causes priorities for the first time in more than twenty years. That review arrives not a moment too soon. When an institution charged with distributing the public's spare change becomes a reliable cash machine for open-borders activism, the social contract that sustains it begins to fray.

Ordinary people are entitled to know exactly where their money goes - and to demand that "good causes" start looking a lot more like the country they still call home.

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, 08/26/2026 - 02:00

Pitch For Defense Treaty And Moving US Military To Israel Is Insane

Authored by Jennifer Kavanagh via Responsible Statecraft,

On August 18, Israel bombed a non-operational Syrian air base, reportedly to derail Turkish plans to deploy military forces to the installation. The move drew swift condemnation from the United States, which did not receive prior notification despite its growing support for Syria, its alliance with Turkey, and the presence of thousands of U.S. military personnel based nearby, in Jordan and other parts of the region.

Is this the behavior of a "model ally"? The Jewish Institute for National Security of America seems to think so.

The group, which promotes "strategic cooperation" between the United States and Israel, tries to defend this position in its new report, "Shifting the Center of Gravity: Transforming the U.S.-Israel Security Partnership." It also lays out an ambitious set of proposals JINSA hopes will be part of a renewed 10-year U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Understanding (the current one expires in 2028). JINSA wants this "final" direct aid package to include $38 billion total and be "paired with new, mostly non-monetary initiatives that deepen and expand the U.S.-Israel partnership."

The recommendations in this report - which also include signing a mutual defense pact, basing U.S. military forces in Israel, and integrating Israeli technology into U.S. homeland defense - should be rejected as threats to U.S. national security. Not only would they cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, but the prescriptions would make the United States less safe than it is today, by institutionalizing U.S. military entanglement with (and even dependence on) Israel and increasing the risk of future wars.

Instead the Trump administration should instead let the current MoU expire in 2028 with no replacement. With a strong military and nuclear arsenal, Israel can defend itself.

The JINSA report opens by heralding Israel as "America's most important ally," praising its military prowess, technological capability, and willingness to project military power in pursuit of supposedly shared goals. Missing from its account of Israel's support during Operation Epic Fury, however, is any mention of Israel's role in starting, escalating, or widening the war. These are certainly relevant details if we are judging whether the bilateral relationship is an asset or a liability to the United States.

The report sidesteps these realities and instead moves quickly to a set of 10 proposals that it argues will take the bilateral partnership to the "next level." From the perspective of protecting U.S. national interests, these ideas range from bad to insane.

Among the more worrying recommendations are those that suggest the United States should form a mutual defense treaty with Israel and begin shifting U.S. assets away from current positions in the Persian Gulf to a wider and permanent force posture in Israel - including a new CENTCOM headquarters and a "regional U.S. prepositioned arsenal hub." These would break long-established firewalls in the U.S.-Israel relationship and undermine U.S. interests.

Since 1975, the United States has had a security commitment to Israel, formalized in a memorandum of agreement, that promises "remedial action" should Israel face external threat. In recent years, this commitment has functioned as a de facto security guarantee on par with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Still, the United States has intentionally refrained from signing a more explicit mutual defense agreement with Israel or basing U.S. personnel inside Israel's borders for two reasons.

First, it was Israel's preference. Jerusalem has long prided itself on the fact that only its soldiers directly defend the country and that it could fight its own battles as long as the United States offered military support. Second, Washington feared a more formal defense obligation or forward bases in Israel would increase the risk that the United States would eventually become entangled in Israel's ongoing border skirmishes or complicate relationships with U.S. Gulf state partners, like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, on whom the United States relied to keep oil prices low.

The recommendations by JINSA, which count 43 retired U.S. officers - including 24 generals and nine admirals - on its roster discard these redlines. The mutual defense agreement they describe is framed as a narrow one that would be triggered "by the high bar of existential threat to Israel or Iranian use of weapons of mass destruction against U.S. bases in the region." But history tells us that, for Israel, the "existential threat" threshold is met easily and often.

In recent years, Israel has argued that Iran posed an existential threat while also claiming Hezbollah and Hamas as existential challenges to Israel's security. In other words, signing onto this agreement would all but guarantee U.S. involvement in future Middle East wars against Iran or possibly even Turkey, which some in Israel have already identified as the next target despite the fact that it is a NATO ally.

Of course, this is the goal of the recommendation: to ensure that no matter how far Israel falls in U.S. public opinion, the United States will be obligated to come to its defense, or risk undermining the credibility of its other commitments.

Basing U.S military forces inside Israel would only worsen the moral hazard engendered by U.S. support to the country. With U.S. personnel as a tripwire, Israel's leaders would feel assured that any attack would almost certainly drag in the United States, giving them little incentive to act with restraint. The risk that the United States might be ensnared in Israel's future military adventures would be high.

The second major focus of JINSA's recommendations covers the sharing of military technology and joint industrial projects between Israel and the United States. Most of these proposals demand that Israel gain the same level of access to U.S. technology as is enjoyed by the closest NATO allies who have spent years working to meet U.S. security standards. That Israeli officials are suspected of spying on the United States should be warning enough that giving Israel this type of access to sensitive U.S. technology would be a mistake.

The most dangerous of these tech sharing ideas, however, is one suggesting that Israeli technologies should be directly integrated into U.S. air and missile defense, specifically the Golden Dome project. This provision would mean that, if the Golden Dome project or something like it eventually covers the United States, Israeli technology would be part of its foundation, making the U.S. dependent on Israel for its own defense.

The United States tried something similar once before with Israel and the project had to be cancelled. The reason? Israel refused to allow the United States access to the source code needed to integrate the Iron Dome systems it planned to purchase into the U.S. air defense network. Experimenting with this type of cooperation a second time would be an act of self-harm on the part of the U.S. government.

Taken together, then, the JINSA proposals do not advance U.S. interests in the Middle East or elsewhere. In fact, they do just the opposite. They will increase the U.S. security burden and tie the United States down in the Middle East in ways that may quickly become irreversible while also undermining the physical security of the homeland. And they will do so at a cost of $38 billion from U.S. taxpayers in the form of annual military aid.

This outcome should be entirely unacceptable to any American president, regardless of the specific ally or partner in question and especially for a president who ran on promises to put U.S. interests first.

Elsewhere, President Donald Trump is pushing allies to defend themselves without so much (or any) U.S. support. He should do the same with Israel. The endless cycle of MoUs has run its course. The current one should be the last.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 23:25

This Is The Income A Family Needs To Live Comfortably In Every US State

Here’s the short version of what it takes for a family of four to live comfortably in 2026 by state:

In Massachusetts, you’d need nearly $330,000 a year - the highest figure in the entire country. Only three states clear the $300,000 mark: Massachusetts, Hawaii, and California. At the other end of the spectrum, Mississippi is the most affordable at about $188,000. That’s a full $142,000 less than what you’d need in Massachusetts.

So… how much does a family of four need in your state?

This map shows the pre-tax income a household with two working adults and two kids needs to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

The numbers come from SmartAsset (as of February 2026). They’re based on the familiar 50/30/20 budget: 50% for necessities, 30% for discretionary spending, and 20% for savings or other goals. These aren’t bare-minimum survival numbers—they’re what it takes to live pretty well while still putting money aside.

And as Visual Capitalist notes, Massachusetts sits at the very top of that list. Massachusetts tops the ranking, with a family of four needing $329,555 per year to meet the 50/30/20 benchmark.

Hawaii follows at $313,165, while California ranks third at $302,682.

Rank State Income needed for family of four (2026)

• 1 - Massachusetts - $329,555
• 2 - Hawaii - $313,165
• 3 - California - $302,682
• 4 - Connecticut - $298,189
• 5 - New Jersey - $295,110
• 6 - New York - $291,533
• 7 - Colorado - $283,213
• 8 - Washington - $281,798
• 9 - Oregon - $280,966
• 10 - Vermont - $280,384
• 11 - Alaska - $272,064
• 12 - New Hampshire - $267,904
• 13 - Rhode Island - $264,659
• 14 - Minnesota - $263,078
• 15 - Maryland - $257,837
• 16 - Maine - $250,931
• 17 - Montana - $249,434
• 18 - Pennsylvania - $247,936
• 19 - Illinois - $244,109
• 20 - Virginia - $242,944
• 21 - Nevada - $242,278
• 22 - Indiana - $241,696
• 23 - Wisconsin - $238,451
• 24 - Arizona - $236,870
• 25 - Utah - $235,789
• 26 - Delaware - $228,134
• 27 - Ohio - $226,221
• 28 - Idaho - $226,054
• 29 - Florida - $223,392
• 30 - New Mexico - $223,142
• 31 - Nebraska - $223,059
• 32 - Missouri - $217,734
• 33 - Georgia - $214,573
• 34 - Michigan - $214,323
• 35 - South Carolina - $212,909
• 36 - North Carolina - $212,410
• 37 - Wyoming - $212,410
• 38 - Oklahoma - $211,910
• 39 - North Dakota - $210,496
• 40 - Kansas - $207,917
• 41 - Iowa - $204,422
• 42 - Texas - $203,424
• 43 - West Virginia - $202,592
• 44 - South Dakota - $201,760
• 45 - Alabama - $198,931
• 46 - Louisiana - $197,933
• 47 - Tennessee - $197,267
• 48 - Arkansas - $195,437
• 49 - Kentucky - $194,854
• 50 - Mississippi - $187,533

Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York aren't far behind, bringing the number of states with comfortable-income thresholds above $290,000 to six.

Colorado and Vermont Make the Top 10

As expected, many of the highest income thresholds are concentrated in the Northeast and along the West Coast.

However, Colorado has the seventh-highest threshold in the country at $283,213, ranking above Washington and Oregon.

Vermont rounds out the top 10 at $280,384, despite having the second-smallest population of any U.S. state. Meanwhile, nearby states like New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island all fall outside the top 10.

Just Six States Come in Below $200,000

Despite the wide range in living costs across the country, only six states have a comfortable-income threshold below $200,000 for a family of four.

Mississippi ranks lowest at $187,533, followed by Kentucky. The states of Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama also fall below the $200,000 mark.

The gap between Massachusetts and Mississippi exceeds $142,000 per year, meaning the Massachusetts benchmark is about 76% higher.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 23:00

DEA Seized 47 Million Fentanyl-Laced Counterfeit Pills In 2025

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confiscated more than 47 million fentanyl-laced counterfeit pills and almost 10,000 pounds of fentanyl powder in 2025.

Just two milligrams of fentanyl is considered a lethal dose. Courtesy of the DEA

The seized narcotics are equivalent to 369 million lethal doses of fentanyl, according to an announcement made by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in an Aug. 21 post on X as part of the National Fentanyl Prevention and Awareness Day. So far this year, the total fentanyl seized by the DEA represents more than 239 million deadly doses.

"Just 2 milligrams - smaller than a grain of salt - can kill. This Justice Department is committed to combating the fentanyl crisis and keeping Americans and our communities safe," the post said.

In an Aug. 21 statement, the DEA asked the public to remain aware of the threat fentanyl poses to American communities, highlighting that the synthetic opioid is around 100 times more potent than morphine and about 50 times more potent than heroin.

Mexican cartels CJNG and Sinaloa Cartel are pressing fentanyl into counterfeit pills with a similar appearance to prescription medications such as Xanax, oxycodone, and Percocet. The criminal groups are also mixing fentanyl with cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin. Both Sinaloa Cartel and CJNG were designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations last year.

According to the DEA, many people who were poisoned with fentanyl didn't even know they were ingesting the substance. The department asserted that the only safe medications are those coming from accredited and licensed medical professionals.

"Parents are often the first line of defense in protecting our children from the dangers of fentanyl and counterfeit pills," Farhana Islam, DEA New York Enforcement Division special agent in charge, said in the statement. "A single conversation can provide the knowledge that saves a life."

According to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data, for fiscal year 2026 through July, the agency has seized 9,600 pounds of fentanyl. In the entirety of fiscal year 2025, 12,000 pounds were confiscated.

In a May 13 statement, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl accounted for the largest share of deaths by drug overdose in the United States last year. Psychostimulants, including meth, were in second place.

China Fentanyl Supply

According to a September 2025 report from the Government Accountability Office, most of the fentanyl trafficked into the United States comes from Mexico, and the chemicals and equipment used to manufacture narcotics come from China.

The Trump administration has taken action to stem the outflow of fentanyl precursors from China. In November 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel said at a press briefing that Beijing has reportedly committed to restrict the export of 13 fentanyl precursor chemicals to Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

In December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order designating fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction. Trump warned that adversaries were trafficking fentanyl into the United States, partly to kill Americans.

"They're trying to drug-out our country," Trump said. "You can look throughout history. Look at China when they were loaded up with drugs; they were suffering greatly, and others were able to take them over.

"No bomb does what this is doing," Trump said.

Trump said there has been a 50 percent decline in the amount of fentanyl coming across the border, highlighting that Beijing has been working with Washington to cut down smuggling of these narcotics.

In June, Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.) said during a House subcommittee hearing on the Chinese communist regime's role in the fentanyl crisis that Beijing subsidizes the export of at least 17 deadly chemicals that have zero legal use.

When China announces restrictions on one precursor chemical, manufacturers in the country simply shift to another precursor, according to Kim.

"Why does Beijing allow these factories of death to remain open? Because the Chinese Communist Party sees strategic value in America's suffering. It has repeatedly chosen geopolitical leverage over human life," she said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 21:45

Scandal-Plagued KPMG To Cut Australian Workforce Following Government Contract Suspension

A major consultancy firm under fire for misconduct in its audit business is cutting its local workforce following a suspension from applying for new government contracts.

KPMG’s U.S. headquarters at Two Manhattan West. Photo via Emily Louick Photography and Entropy Film Works Inc.

KPMG - one of the "Big Four" accounting firms alongside Deloitte, PwC, and EY - revealed on Aug. 24 that its annual revenue dipped 1 percent to $2.26 billion (US$1.62 billion) in fiscal 2026. The firm also warned of a rocky road ahead, with new CEO John Sams noting, "We expect difficult market conditions to continue in financial year 2027 and beyond."

A combination of soft market conditions and a continued drop in government reliance on consultants drove a 16.9 percent revenue decrease in KPMG's consulting business. However, the firm saw growth elsewhere, with revenue for its audit and assurance and its tax and legal arms rising 11 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively.

Following a review of its operating costs and the fallout from recent conduct and whistleblower controversies, KPMG will cut its workforce by 5 percent. The reduction will primarily impact the consulting and business services divisions, eliminating 27 partner roles and approximately 360 employees.

Despite overall revenue falling short of expectations, Sams noted that four out of the firm's five businesses grew. "This result reflects the resilience of our business and, above all, the commitment of our people in a very challenging year," he said. "We will continue to monitor performance closely, act when needed and consider carefully how the firm needs to be set up for the future."

The firm's leadership will not escape the financial hit, however, with average equity partner remuneration plunging 13 percent from the previous year.

KPMG is currently banned from bidding on federal government contracts until at least the end of September, pending the finance department's review of its conduct. Several state governments have similarly put the firm on ice.

The firm has been engulfed in an audit leak scandal since facing a federal parliamentary committee hearing in June. During the inquiry, it was revealed that some executives had misused confidential board papers - including Lendlease documents used to support audit bids for Westpac and Dexus - to win new work and mistreated a whistleblower who had raised concerns. Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill aired the allegations in parliament, and the firm was referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

The scandal has already ousted numerous executives, including former CEO Andrew Yates and chair Martin Sheppard. Sams confirmed that several internal and external reviews will wrap up in the coming months.

"Their findings will inform the next phase of our action plan and help ensure we take all necessary action," Sams said. "We know there is more to do."

KPMG currently holds 297 active federal contracts worth $653 million.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 21:20

Macroeconomic Data Is Really A Tool For Government Intervention

Authored by Frank Shostak via Mises Institute,

It is common for commentators and economists to refer to something called the "economy," which sometimes performs well and, at other times, poorly. The "economy" is presented as an entity apart from individuals. Within this framework, the "economy" is assigned paramount importance, while the role of individuals is barely mentioned. It must be realized that, at no stage, does the so-called "economy" have a life of its own, independent from individuals.

According to this way of thinking, the "economy" produces goods and services. Once the output is produced by the "economy," what is required is its distribution among individuals in the fairest way.

In reality, goods and services are not produced in totality. Every individual is preoccupied with his own production and consumption of goods and services. Consequently, there is no such thing as the total real national output. Furthermore, it is not possible to establish the total real output given that, arithmetically, we cannot coherently add potatoes to tomatoes (i.e., heterogeneous goods). All that we could establish is the numerical amount of money spent on goods and services (i.e., the monetary turnover). The employment of the average price metric to convert the monetary turnover into the real output does not solve this issue since the average price cannot be meaningfully established.

For example, suppose two transactions are conducted. In the first transaction, one loaf of bread is exchanged for $2. In the second transaction, one gallon of milk is exchanged for $1. The price, or the rate of exchange, in the first transaction is $2 for one loaf of bread. The price in the second transaction is $1 one gallon of milk. In order to calculate an average price, we must add these two ratios and divide them by two; however, it is conceptually meaningless to add $2 exchanged for one loaf of bread to $1 exchanged for one gallon of milk. This in turn means that various macroeconomic indicators compiled by government statisticians are detached from the real world.

Consequently, various policies to influence an undefined entity-the "economy"-via undefined indicators inflict damage to the well-being of individuals. Even government statisticians admit that the whole thing is not real. According to J. Steven Landefeld and Robert P. Parker from the Bureau of Economic Analysis,

In particular, it is important to recognize that real GDP is an analytic concept. Despite the name, real GDP is not "real" in the sense that it can, even in principle, be observed or collected directly, in the same sense that current-dollar GDP cannot in principle be observed or collected as the sum of actual spending on final goods and services in the economy. Quantities of apples and oranges can in principle be collected, but they cannot be added to obtain the total quantity of "fruit" output in the economy.

By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an "economy" by means of GDP statistics and other economic indicators. Once the "economy" is concretized, policymakers could navigate the "economy" along the growth path that is considered by the experts as desirable.

Thus, whenever the growth rate slips below the outlined path, government and central bank policymakers are expected to give the "economy" a suitable push by means of fiscal and monetary policies. According to Rothbard,

Bureaucrats as well as statist reformers. . . in order to get "into" the situation that they are trying to plan and reform, they must obtain knowledge that is not personal, day-to-day experience; the only form that such knowledge can take is statistics. Statistics are the eyes and ears of the bureaucrat, the politician, the socialistic reformer. Only by statistics can they know, or at least have any idea about, what is going on in the economy.

Moreover,

. . .one of the major reasons put forth for government intervention is that it "corrects" the market, and makes the market and the economy more rational. Obviously, if the government were deprived of all knowledge whatever of economic affairs, there could not even be a pretense of rationality in government intervention. Surely, the absence of statistics would absolutely and immediately wreck any attempt at socialistic planning.

The "Hampered" Environment and Macro-Economic Data

To succeed in a hampered market environment, entrepreneurs tend to respond to prevailing conditions, which are influenced by central bank and government policies. A businessperson cannot afford to ignore changes in various economic indicators such as GDP given that government and central bank officials react to changes in these indicators. For instance, if the central bank is expected to tighten its monetary stance in response to a strengthening in the GDP, a businessperson must take this into account in order to succeed in his business.

Note that the government-in order to construct various economic indicators-collects the data from businesses that are allocating resources to supply the government with the information. The construction of various economic indicators generates employment opportunities for economists and experts in other fields such as mathematics and statistics. These experts are employed not only to compile various economic data; they are also employed to interpret the data and provide guidance to businesses.

Do We Need to Know Macroeconomic Data in a Free Market Environment?

In a free market environment-free of government and central bank interference with businesses-it does not make much sense to measure and publish various economic indicators. This type of information will be of little use to entrepreneurs.

In a free market environment, what possible use can an entrepreneur make of information about the growth rate in gross domestic product (GDP)? Alternatively, what possible use can be made out of the data showing that the national balance of payments has moved into a deficit or a surplus? According to Rothbard,

The individual consumer, in his daily rounds, has little need of statistics; through advertising, through the information of friends, and through his own experience, he finds out what is going on in the markets around him. The same is true of the business firm. The businessman must also size up his particular market, determine the prices he has to pay for what he buys and charge for what he sells, engage in cost accounting to estimate his costs, and so on.

The only indicator to which entrepreneurs should pay attention to is profitability in their concerned activity. The higher the profit, the more a particular business activity is in tune with consumers' highest priorities.

Paying attention to consumers' wishes means that entrepreneurs have to organize the most suitable production structure for that purpose. The information on various macroeconomic indicators will be of little assistance in this regard.

What an entrepreneur requires is not general macroeconomic information, but rather specific information about consumers' demand for a product or a range of products. Government-aggregated macro-indicators will not be of much help to entrepreneurs. The entrepreneur would have to establish his own network of information concerning a particular venture. If a businessperson's assessment of consumers' demand is correct then he will make a profit. An incorrect assessment will result in a loss.

The profit-and-loss paradigm penalizes those businesses that have misjudged consumer's priorities and rewards those businesses who have exercised a correct appraisal. Hence, by the profit-and-loss framework, resources are withdrawn from those entrepreneurs who misjudged consumer's priorities to those entrepreneurs who accurately appraised consumer's priorities. According to Mises,

Thus, profit and loss are generated by success or failure in adjusting the course of production activities to the most urgent demand of the consumers.

We have seen that the construction of various economic indicators generates employment opportunities for economists and experts in other fields such as mathematics and statistics.

These experts are employed not only to compile various economic data, they are also employed to interpret the data and provide guidance to businesses. However, in a free unhampered market, businessmen in the pursuance of their goals are unlikely to require macroeconomic indicators. Therefore, there would be little interest in the services of economists, statisticians, and mathematicians in a free unhampered market.

Conclusion

Macroeconomic data is employed by government and central bank policymakers to navigate the so-called "economy" towards the growth path that was set by the policymakers. As a rule, this navigation culminates in the boom-bust cycle menace and a weakening in the process of wealth generation. By lumping the values of final goods and services together, government statisticians concretize the fiction of an "economy" by means of GDP statistics and other economic indicators.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 20:55

Limits On Border Patrol Arrests In California Lifted By Federal Appeals Court

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court on Aug. 24 rescinded a preliminary injunction that limited U.S. Border Patrol stops and arrests in California's Central Valley.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that a federal district court failed to properly analyze whether the plaintiffs had standing to seek forward-looking relief based on alleged harms in the past.

Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show, among other things, a strong enough connection to the dispute to justify their participation in a lawsuit.

The Ninth Circuit sent the lawsuit challenging immigration detentions back to the district court to allow it to revisit its legal analysis after that court issued a preliminary injunction limiting U.S. Border Patrol's ability to stop and arrest people.

The new ruling, which does not dismiss the lawsuit itself, is a tactical win for the Trump administration because it eliminates - for now - a preliminary injunction that limited Border Patrol's ability to stop and detain people. The appeals court sent the case back to the federal district court for a limited do-over on the question of standing.

The lawsuit concerns Section 1357(a)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows Border Patrol agents to make warrantless arrests only if they have reason to believe two things: that the person is in the country unlawfully, and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The plaintiffs in the case took the position that the agents made arrests without properly assessing whether people were actually flight risks.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued on behalf of the plaintiffs, the United Farm Workers of America and several farm workers, arguing that over a three-day period in Kern County, California, in January 2025, Border Patrol unlawfully detained individuals - including day laborers - without having a reason to believe they were likely to escape before a warrant could be issued. The enforcement project was known as Operation Return to Sender.

Residents of Bakersfield and the vicinity "started disappearing" in "the middle of citrus harvesting season," and this alarmed local residents who contacted the ACLU, the group said in a summary.

In a federal class action, the ACLU argued the Border Patrol was using "a cruel tactic to strip people of their right to an immigration hearing and coerce them instead into agreeing to "voluntary departure," which carries with it a ban on returning to the United States for up to 10 years.

In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston granted a preliminary injunction covering the Eastern District, which is California's Central Valley.

The order prevented Border Patrol from stopping people in violation of the Fourth Amendment or arresting them unless officers comply with federal law. The injunction required that to carry out an arrest, the officers must have a reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the country.

On appeal, the federal government argued that the district court only looked at past events in Kern County. Instead, the court should have looked at whether the same unlawful stops and arrests were likely to happen again soon, the government said.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the government was correct when it said that the district court failed to engage in the "correct standing analysis before granting preliminary prospective injunctive relief."

The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the Border Patrol, hailed the new ruling.

"This is a good outcome, and it reinforces our confidence in related cases - like [Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem], which raises similar claims and where we've already prevailed once at the Supreme Court," a spokesperson told The Epoch Times.

In that case, in September 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily put on hold a lower court order restricting immigration stops in Southern California.

The court did not issue a formal opinion, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence saying the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue a forward-looking injunction. He said that past unlawful stops do not by themselves prove a real and immediate threat that the same individuals will be stopped again in the same way.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 20:05

Report: Taxpayers Funding $230 Million In Federal Grants Tied To 'Intersectionality'

Authored by AG News Staff via American Greatness,

The federal government has awarded about $230 million to programs referencing "intersectionality," with much of the funding originating during the Biden administration, according to a new report from two policy groups.

The Defense of Freedom Institute and Legal Insurrection Foundation identified 249 federal assistance records that used the term "intersectionality," an ideological framework that examines race, sex, class and other characteristics in assessing discrimination and privilege.

According to the report, about $140 million has been spent, while another $90 million remains obligated. Funding surged during former President Joe Biden's administration, peaking at $80.1 million in 2023, before declining under President Donald Trump.

Some grants remain active through 2030, and roughly 100 of the 249 awards identified by researchers appear to be ongoing.

"Amazingly, we have discovered that the federal government has been funding the Intersectionality movement," William Jacobson, founder of the Legal Insurrection Foundation and a Cornell Law School professor, told the New York Post. "This has to stop."

The grants encompass projects ranging from medical research to universities, museums and community programs. In some cases, intersectionality was one component of research receiving federal support rather than the primary purpose of the grant.

Among the awards highlighted was nearly $11 million to the New Hampshire Department of Health for cancer prevention and control programs. The program targeted populations experiencing health disparities, including what it described as an "intersectionality of gender and income inequality."

Other examples included $8.16 million to New York University for a diabetes equity research center and $14.25 million to Drexel University for a program intended to increase diversity among faculty studying health disparities.

The report's authors warn that embedding intersectionality into federal programs could encourage recipients to make decisions based on race and other protected characteristics while disguising those practices in academic terminology.

"This report shows just how deeply intersectional ideology has become embedded in the federal grant-making apparatus," Defense of Freedom Institute President Robert Eitel said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 17:40

'I Thought It Would Rise Forever'; World's 'Craziest' Stock Market Suddenly Faces Billion-Dollar Outflows

Over the past few months, we have been closely following the chaos (rise and fall) in a once only marginally-monitored market on the other side of the world.

Namely, the AI/chip-driven KOSPI rally and subsequent sharp unwind concentrated in Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix...

• “From FOMO To Oh No! Koreans Face Massive Forced Liquidations As AI Bubble Bursts” (June 9, 2026) - Aggressive leveraged retail buying of Samsung and SK Hynix (via margin and new single-stock 2x ETFs) turned into forced liquidations and a self-reinforcing sell-off as the AI-fueled KOSPI correction accelerated.

• “AI Winners Unwind Sparks Panic In South Korea As SK Hynix Suffers Record Plunge, KOSPI Dumps” (July 13, 2026) - SK Hynix suffered a record one-day plunge (~15%) after its big U.S. ADR debut, sparking a broader memory/storage sell-off that drove the KOSPI down nearly 9% and triggered a market-wide trading halt.

• “Korea’s Two-Stock Market Just Blew Up” (July 29, 2026) - KOSPI crashed hard (down ~11% in one session and over 18% in two days, with a >30% monthly loss in July), as leveraged retail bets and margin debt in the two dominant chip stocks (Samsung and SK Hynix) unwound violently.

And while the headlines (as the index was exploding higher day after day) have slowed, no lessor establishment entity than The Wall Street Journal has decided the numbers aren't enough - the notional trillions lost on the leverage-maxxing malarkey - we need a human story to bring it home as just how insane these manias can get (and oddly more frequently than you'd think, in South Korea).

They headline their story: "The World's Craziest Stock Market Has Turned Into a Fright Ride" to give you a sense of the fun ahead...

After tripling in the months prior, the Kospi plummeted around 40% over six weeks in June and July, burning hundreds of thousands of investors - a sober warning to those betting big on the AI industry. The roller-coaster ride has continued: The Kospi has since rebounded about 20% from its low.

Meet Yoon Jae-Yi, a 30-year-old English teacher, who lost $19,000, prompting her to cut her living expenses - fewer taxi rides, less travel.

Skipping meals, she tells herself, doubles as a diet.

Yoon Kyung-min, a 44-year-old sound engineer, said he still can’t believe the financial disaster of the past two months.

After quitting his job, he had invested half of his severance pay into semiconductor stocks and saw $7,200 evaporate in a week. 

“If my wife finds out, I will be in serious trouble,” said Yoon, who says he confessed only to a bit of bad luck without giving details.

Yoon thought the market “would rise forever,” he said.

“The volatility is just too severe. This isn’t sound investing. It’s a gambling table, a casino,” said 68-year-old Jung Eui-jung, who heads the Korea Stockholders’ Alliance, a group representing the country’s roughly 14 million individual investors.

Many individual investors, like Jake Cheong, a 30-year-old accountant in Seoul, got hung out to dry. 

He invested $29,000 or so into a leveraged ETF tracking the firm. The added leverage meant that if SK Hynix’s stock fell, Cheong’s losses would be compounded. Then came the crash.

As of Friday, his position has fallen 69% to roughly $9,000.

“My hard rule used to be that when too many people seem to be boasting about their stock gains, we’ve probably hit the peak,” Cheong said.

“But FOMO got the better of me.”

Lee Ka-young, a 25-year-old software developer, said she lost all the money she made when stocks soared this year. 

“I got greedy,” Lee said. “I kept thinking, what if it climbed even higher after I cashed out?”

Her investments multiplied so fast—and vanished so quickly—it felt “like it was all a dream,” Lee said.

Investors (if that's what you would term them) now blame South Korean President Lee Jae Myung’s administration for loosening regulations to allow such potentially lucrative, high-risk funds.

His government has since put in place stricter rules around trading the ETFs with the aim of helping curb market volatility. 

And that 'curbing' has led to South Korea’s leveraged ETFs tied to chipmakers seeing outflows near $1 billion this month as investor fervor over the AI trade cooled and regulators stepped up measures to curb demand.

Leveraged products tied to Samsung Electronics recorded outflows of $381 million so far in August, while withdrawal amounted to $601 million for those tracking SK Hynix, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence.

That would mark the first monthly outflow since their late-May launch.

And finally, if you were wondering, it's not over yet as every rebound in Samsung or SK Hynix is met with a wave of buying once again as 'chasers gonna chase'...

...although we'd note there has been considerably more two-way action.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 17:20

A Teachers' Union Hits The Wrong Target

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

The California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) is the largest teachers-only public pension system in the country, with more than $400 billion in assets under management. As of December 31, 2024, CalSTRS directly held three-quarters of a million shares of Target Corporation, worth more than $100 million.

If one were to add in the Target holdings of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (the second and third-largest teachers-only plans in the country, respectively), then the total value of shares owned would jump by another $60-plus million. Add in the remaining state teacher retirement systems, plus the city systems of Chicago, Denver, Kansas City (Missouri), New York City, St. Louis, and St. Paul, and the total value of Target shares directly held by teacher pensions is well into the multiple hundreds of millions, at the very least. Add in the value of indirect shares held through various index funds and ETFs, and teacher retirement plans hold literally billions of dollars' worth of Target stock. Given all this, it's more than fair to say that Target is a key component of teachers' pension portfolios and, as a result, the company's long-term success is directly linked to American teachers' retirement security.

And yet...

This past weekend, the American Federation of Teachers, the second-largest teachers' union in the country and likely the most prominent, launched a new campaign urging parents and students to boycott Target for back-to-school supplies and clothes. Randi Weingarten, the politically active and politically connected president of the AFT, released a video detailing the boycott and explaining why it is, in her eyes, an absolute moral imperative to teach Target a lesson. According to an AFT press release, "The 'Shop Smart, Support Working Families' campaign was created in response to Target's refusal to condemn the unlawful Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity that continues to roil communities around the country." Weingarten herself complained that "We gave Target ample time to stand with the communities in which they operate and help their neighbors, but its silence about federal immigration abuses has been deafening."

The AFT is angry at Target because Target and its executives didn't do what the union wanted: make its political fight their fight. And it's actively trying to damage the company because of that refusal.

Taken together, these two facts - teachers' pensions hold considerable equity in Target, while teachers' unions are purposefully trying to harm the company - say quite a bit about the state of markets and politics in the country at the moment and suggest a handful of lessons that can and should be learned by outside observers.

The first thing this strange confluence of circumstances tells us is that people, in general, neither understand what a publicly traded corporation is nor fully grasp its purpose. Corporations are, as a rule, portrayed in our popular media and perceived by most average Americans as far-off, distant, heartless organizations run by and for rich people. In truth, publicly traded corporations like Target are owned by their shareholders, the overwhelming majority of whom are just ordinary folks - like teachers - who are trying to save for their retirement. Public pension plans, 401(k)s, IRAs, etc., are the primary savings vehicles for most "investors." The perception of investors as a bunch of "fat cats" on Wall Street who own everything and manipulate everything for their benefit is largely a myth, and it has been for decades. You, your spouse, your kids, your mom and pop, and their small business are the majority of investors and, by extension, the majority of owners of most corporations.

There is no doubt that a significant disconnect exists between the owners of corporations (principals) and those who run them on the owners' behalf (agents). This is a longstanding concern that has prompted much discussion, consternation, and even confrontation over the decades. Moreover, with so many owners - literally millions of people - many opinions on how best to run the company exist, and those opinions often and passionately conflict with one another. Given this, basic rules governing the conduct of the agents exist and are updated constantly. This is what's known as "governance." The most famous description of foundational principles of governance, designed to secure the interests of all shareholders, was provided by the economist Milton Friedman:

In a free-enterprise, private-property system, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct responsibility to his employers. That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.

That's it. That's what corporate executives are supposed to do. That's how they are meant to treat their shareholders - by providing them a return on their investment. That's the fundamental principle of governance: produce returns for all investors.

Unfortunately, some people think that their opinions, wants, and desires are more important than other people's right to earn a return on their investment. They think that corporations exist to serve their ends and to accommodate their political beliefs and ambitions. Even more unfortunately, many of these people have been encouraged to think this by the very corporate "agents" who know better and who have moral and legal obligations to the contrary.

In August 2019, for example, the Business Roundtable (BRT) - a nonprofit organization whose members are the CEOs of the largest corporations in the United States - issued a declaration called a "Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation." In it, the 181 signatories proclaimed that they and their corporations were dedicated to being less focused on shareholders and more focused on stakeholders. The chairman of the Roundtable at the time was Jamie Dimon, the CEO and chairman of the largest bank in the world (by market cap). "The American dream is alive," Dimon lamented, "but fraying." He implied that only the executives of the world's biggest companies (the agents to their tens of millions of principals) could save the American Dream. More to the point, he implied that they could only do so by redefining the purpose of a corporation. "These modernized principles reflect the business community's unwavering commitment to continue to push for an economy that serves all Americans."

Every CEO who signed that document alongside Dimon (and Larry Fink from BlackRock, Tim Buckley from Vanguard, Brian Moynihan from Bank of America, Michael Corbat from Citigroup, Jeff Bezos from Amazon, etc., etc., ad nauseam) is responsible for sowing confusion among the people, for encouraging people like Randi Weingarten to think of Target as a tool to accomplish her goals. These CEOs may not fully agree with this declaration they issued seven years ago, and they may wish they hadn't signed the BRT's now-infamous statement, but that doesn't change the fact that they did sign it and that by doing so they gave Weingarten and countless others the impression that corporations were the appropriate vehicle for their political aspirations.

Ironically, one of the signatories of that document was a man named Brian Cornell, who was then the CEO of Target. Cornell retired from the CEO role earlier this year but remains the company's executive chair. Even more ironically, Cornell was hardly the first of Target's executives to play politics with the company's resources and reputation. As I have noted elsewhere, Target has a long history of getting involved in matters that are beyond its business purview. Indeed, Target has a well-earned reputation as a social-justice-compliant company - which is probably why Weingarten is so upset that it has resisted her entreaties. The lesson here is that "no good deed goes unpunished" (no matter how broadly one defines the word "good"). Once you decide to ride the social-justice wave, it can be nigh on impossible to bail on that wave before wiping out. The folks at Target are undoubtedly learning this lesson the hard way.

The nation's teachers are learning that lesson the hard way as well, whether they realize it or not. They are part-owners of the company that Weingarten and the AFT are trying to damage over politics. Indeed, it's almost certainly the case that Weingarten herself is a part-owner of Target and, as such, is damaging her own pension returns. Of course, the catch here is that as an individual shareholder, Weingarten is free to make her own investment decision for whatever reasons she sees fit. As the president of a teachers' union, however, she has certain obligations. She is not legally a fiduciary steward of her constituents' pension funds, but she does have tremendous influence over those who are fiduciaries. The AFT's Trustee Council openly concedes that it has more than 50 members on 27 different pension boards. Additionally, the union produces a variety of materials meant to influence fiduciaries on their responsibilities to union members and beneficiaries. Randi Weingarten's hands may be legally clean, but her house is a mess. She's harnessed the power of her union and of teachers more generally to fight against a company of which they are all part-owners. That is the very definition of self-defeating.

In the end, this is what happens when people forget - or ignore - the nature of capital markets and publicly traded corporations. No one, it seems - not the AFT, not the BRT, not the massive asset management firms that control more than $25 trillion in other people's money - thinks of corporations as what they really are: the collected savings of tens of millions of ordinary people. They think of corporations as the means to their ends, not the ends of their true owners.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 17:00

Approval Of Trump's Presidency And The War On Iran Hit New Lows

Americans' approval of the US-Israeli war on Iran has reached another record low, pulling Trump's approval rating down with it, to the worst reading of either of his two terms in office, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll. The new findings also show likely spillover effects for the November midterms that will benefit Democrats seeking to retake the majority in Congress.  

18 US service members have died in Trump's war on Iran, and more than 700 others have been wounded or injured (AP)

Early on, the Trump administration claimed his war of choice would be over in a matter of a few weeks. On Friday, it will have been going on for six months with no resolution in sight. With the war keeping gas prices far higher than they were before Trump teamed up with Israel to launch a surprise attack on Iran in the middle of ongoing negotiations, Americans are increasingly taking a dim view of the war, while also overwhelmingly pessimistic about how long it will last. Eighteen US service members have died, and 774 have been injured or wounded. Thousands of Iranians have been killed. 

In the new poll that reflects sentiments recorded through Monday, 63% of Americans disapprove of military strikes on Iran, with only 31% approving. Most Republicans still support the war, but the popularity on that side of the aisle has eroded too: 69% support the war now, compared to 77% in March, shortly after Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu started the war on Feb. 28.  Fully 90% of Democrats oppose the military attacks on Iran, along with 67% of independents. Despair rules: About 83% of Americans think the war will last "for an extended period of time," against only 12% who think it will be wrapped up in weeks.  

Like cement shoes he put on himself, the war on Iran is steadily pulling Trump's popularity to new lows. Only 33% of surveyed Americans approve of Trump's overall performance, the worst level that Reuters/Ipsos has observed over either of his two administrations.

Trump isn't up for re-election in November, but the stakes are sky-high for him in the midterms. A Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate will spawn any number of investigations of his administration and the Trump family's side business transactions. A takeover of both chambers would carry the prospect of Trump being impeached and removed from office. Here, the poll brought more bad news for Trump and the Republican Party. In the so-called "generic ballot" question that asks which party they're likely to vote for in their House race, 35% of Americans said they'd pick a Democrat, compared to 29% who said a Republican. Sixteen percent "don't know" and another 16% don't plan to vote.   

While the Trump administration is consumed by the war, a 22% plurality of Americans say the most important problem facing the country is "the economy, unemployment and jobs," followed by 13% who said "threats to democratic values and norms," and 11% who said "corruption."  Along those same lines, 66% disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy. 

In other survey readings: 

• Likely 2028 presidential contenders JD Vance and Marco Rubio have similar favorability ratings: 34% for Vance and 32% for Rubio. However,  41% have a "very unfavorable" regard for Vance vs 30% for Rubio. 
• 69% say America is off on the wrong track, vs just 16% who say it's heading in the right direction.
• 58% say US foreign policy is on the wrong track, more than double the 23% who say "right direction"

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 16:40

Only 35% Of Women Under-25 Have Positive View Of Men; Survey Finds 'Heteroflexible' Is The Fastest Growing Sexual Orientation In America

Authored by Michael Snyder via The End of The American Dream blog,

Our culture is being transformed at a pace that is difficult to comprehend. The numbers that I am going to share with you in this article paint an undeniable picture about where our society is heading. That doesn’t mean that the trends that we are witnessing now are permanent. We have been through so many societal pivot points in recent decades, and it is probably inevitable that there will be more. But without a doubt there have been some very clear long-term cultural shifts that have radically changed how we relate to one another and to the world around us.

Earlier today, I came across a survey about how men and women view each other that absolutely shocked me…

As expected, we found that there are significant divides between young men and young women – but they are not just confined to political views. Gen Z women are more left wing than their male peers when it comes to politics and economics. This generation of women is also much more pessimistic about the country and their own lives than men, and substantially more negative towards men than the men are towards women. Seventy-two per cent of men under 30 say they have a positive view of the opposite gender, compared with just 50 per cent of women of the same age. Thirty-eight per cent of men say they feel “very positively” towards women, while only 18 per cent of women say the same about men. This trend is particularly pronounced among women under 25, of whom just 35 per cent feel positively towards men.

Read that last sentence again.

The survey discovered that only 35 percent of women under the age of 25 have a positive view of men.

How is that even possible?

This survey was conducted in the UK, but I am sure that it would have produced similar results if it had been conducted in the United States.

As I thought about this, it occurred to me that what we are witnessing is likely the result of decades of conditioning.

Men are almost always the villains in our movies and television shows.

When a family is depicted on screen, it is almost always the father that is the problem.

And even in our commercials, men and women are characterized very differently.

Once you become aware of this phenomenon, you will literally see it everywhere.

These days, much of the population considers men (especially young men) to be threats unless proven otherwise, while most women are considered to be trustworthy unless proven otherwise.

Of course it is undeniable that our society is absolutely teeming with criminal predators at this point, and if you trust the wrong person you and your family could get hurt very badly.

The thin veneer of civilization that we all rely on is disintegrating all around us, and that is a terrible thing.

Meanwhile, our values regarding sex and sexuality are rapidly changing.

According to the most recent Gallup poll on the matter, 9 percent of U.S. adults now identify as LGBTQ+…

Gallup finds 9.0% of U.S. adults identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or something other than straight or heterosexual in 2025. The percentage has more than doubled since Gallup first measured LGBTQ+ identification in 2012.

That is quite a high number, but the real story is what is occurring among our young adults.

According to that same poll, 23 percent of U.S. adults under the age of 30 now identify as LGBTQ+…

Young adults are far more likely than older adults to identify as LGBTQ+. Twenty-three percent of adults under 30 and 10.4% of adults aged 30 to 49 are LGBTQ+, compared with about 2% to 3% of older Americans.

I was curious, and so I had Google create a graph that shows how this number has changed since Gallup began asking this question in 2012.

The results were staggering…

The percentage of U.S. adults under the age of 30 that identify as LGBTQ+ has nearly quadrupled since 2012.

That is not just a trend.

That is a tsunami.

And there is a huge gender gap.

Only 11.4 percent of men under the age of 30 identify as LGBTQ+, but a whopping 31.4 percent of women under the age of 30 do…

Women are nearly twice as likely as men to identify as LGBTQ+ (10.5% vs. 5.6%, respectively), a gap driven primarily by women’s higher rates of bisexual identification. Gender gaps are especially pronounced in the youngest generation — 31.4% of women aged 18 to 29 versus 11.4% of men in the same age group identify as LGBTQ+, with most of these younger women saying they are bisexual.

Nearly a third of all women in the United States under the age of 30 now identify as LGBTQ+.

That may help to explain the survey results that I discussed at the beginning of this article.

And the vast majority of Americans that identify as LGBTQ+ consider themselves to be bisexual…

Bisexual adults make up the largest share of the LGBTQ+ population at 58.6%, equivalent to 5.3% of all U.S. adults. Beyond that, 17.4% of LGBTQ+ adults say they are gay, 16.0% identify as lesbian, and 12.1% say they are transgender, all ranging between 1% and 2% of U.S. adults overall.

This is a point that is often lost when people debate these issues.

Bisexual adults make up the biggest portion of the LGBTQ+ population by a very wide margin.

But now another segment is rapidly growing.

The number of Americans that consider themselves to be “heteroflexible” has been absolutely exploding.

If you are not familiar with “heteroflexibility”, the following explanation comes from Health.com…

Heteroflexibility is a sexual orientation that describes people who are primarily heterosexual but occasionally experience attraction to people of the same sex, according to Debra Laino, DHSc, a clinical sexologist and relationship therapist in Delaware.

People who are mostly attracted to a different gender but also feel some attraction to the same gender fit the definition of heteroflexible.

“Heteroflexible, like most labels, means different things to different people,” Casey Tanner, a clinical sex therapist in Chicago, told Health. “It comes up most of the time when a person identifies as mainly straight with a slight propensity towards queerness in certain circumstances.”

For most of my adult life, I had never even heard of this term.

But according to the New York Post, experts believe that 15 percent of the U.S. population is now “heteroflexible”…

It is estimated that a staggering 15% of the US population — that’s 50 to 55 million Americans — now identifies as heteroflexible.

Those numbers seem high to me.

I have a hard time imagining that there are 50 million “heteroflexibles” out there.

But of course the dating world is far different now than when I was young.

One dating app is actually reporting that the number of their users that identify as “heteroflexible” increased by 193 percent in just one year…

Feeld, a dating app for those seeking alternative relationship structures, recently released its annual Raw report, providing a look at the preferences that shape contemporary intimacy. According to the findings, heteroflexibility is the fastest-growing sexuality, with the number of practitioners skyrocketing by 193% over the past year.

Clearly this is a label that is gaining a tremendous amount of steam.

Nobody can deny that America is a completely different place than it was 50 years ago.

And it would be completely and utterly unrecognizable to our founders.

So much can change in just one generation.

The young adults of today are the future of our society, and that has enormous implications for all of us.

Michael’s new book entitled “10 Prophetic Events That Are Coming Next” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com, and you can subscribe to his Substack newsletter at michaeltsnyder.substack.com.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 16:20

Amazon's New Warehouses May Process Packages 2.5 Times Faster With Far Fewer Workers

Amazon is developing a new warehouse concept aimed at automating one of the most stubbornly manual parts of online retail: preparing a chaotic mix of packages for the final trip to customers’ homes, according to Business Insider.

Known internally as Project Tetromino, the proposed facilities would sit at the end of Amazon’s logistics network. Packages would arrive from fulfillment centers and then be sorted, temporarily stored, placed in delivery order and staged for drivers with far less human involvement than at current delivery stations. The name appears to reference the geometric pieces in Tetris, an appropriate metaphor for the difficult task of arranging parcels of different shapes and sizes into limited storage space and delivery vans.

According to an internal planning document reviewed by Business Insider, Amazon had considered spending $103 million on a pilot facility in 2028, followed by five additional stations in 2029 and another 10 in 2030. The five facilities planned for 2029 were estimated to cost roughly $85 million each, which would take the project’s cumulative investment beyond $530 million by the end of that year. The proposed system was expected to handle packages at approximately 2.5 times the rate of Amazon’s existing delivery-station design.

Insider writes that one possible component of the project is technology from Boxbot, an AI-powered logistics robotics company. Its system takes packages from conveyor belts, moves them into storage trays and then uses software to arrange their release in the sequence needed for delivery. Boxbot says this approach can make the vehicle-loading stage as much as 10 times faster, although that is the company’s own performance claim and is not necessarily Amazon’s projection for Tetromino as a whole.

The concept forms part of Amazon’s much broader effort to automate its shipping network. The company has already said it expects to more than double the number of robotic arms it operates during 2026. Other logistics companies are moving in the same direction: FedEx is using AI-equipped Dexterity robots to load trailers, while UPS and DHL have deployed robotic systems for unloading freight.

Amazon cautioned that Tetromino remains an early-stage idea, however.

A spokesperson confirmed that the company continues to test technologies intended to improve safety and the customer experience, but disputed the reported spending estimates and construction schedule, saying the figures in the internal document no longer reflected its current plans. So while the project offers a window into Amazon’s automation ambitions, the proposed investment and rollout should be treated as preliminary rather than settled.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 15:40

Washington Backs Brazil's Serra Verde Mine In $1.55 Billion Rare-Earth Push

The U.S. Department of War has announced a $750 million investment aimed at securing long-term supplies of critical rare-earth elements from Serra Verde’s Pela Ema mine in central Brazil, as Washington accelerates efforts to reduce its dependence on China for strategically important minerals, according to a DOW press release out this week. 

The investment, announced Aug. 24 through the department’s Economic Defense Unit and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment program, will support an offtake agreement for mixed rare-earth carbonates produced by Serra Verde. It forms part of a broader $1.55 billion financing and purchasing structure that also includes a $300 million commitment from the Defense Logistics Agency and $500 million from a major commercial bank.

The release says that the agreement is intended to give the U.S. and its allies more reliable access to dysprosium, terbium, neodymium and praseodymium.

These elements are crucial inputs for high-performance permanent magnets used across advanced defense systems, including fighter aircraft, nuclear submarines, guided missiles, satellites and drones. They are also increasingly important to electric transportation, energy infrastructure, aerospace and electronics.

China currently dominates several stages of the global rare-earth supply chain, particularly processing and magnet manufacturing. U.S. officials have consequently made the development of alternative “mine-to-magnet” supply chains a national-security and industrial-policy priority.

“By partnering with Serra Verde, we are taking a decisive step to break our adversaries’ near-monopoly on rare-earth elements,” Assistant Secretary of War for Industrial Base Policy Mike Cadenazzi said in the announcement.

The latest commitment follows a separate $565 million financing agreement for Serra Verde’s Pela Ema project through the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. Together with efforts by the Department of Commerce to expand domestic magnet manufacturing, the investments point to a broader strategy: securing raw materials from allied and partner countries while building enough processing and manufacturing capacity to keep strategically important supply chains outside Chinese control.

If successful, the Serra Verde initiative could become an important piece of that strategy. Rather than simply funding additional mineral production, Washington is using financing, government purchasing commitments and private capital to create guaranteed demand for a non-Chinese source of rare earths, helping underpin an alternative supply chain from the mine through to the advanced magnets used in both military and commercial technologies.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 15:20

Trump Says All Mines Cleared From Strait Of Hormuz, Warns Military Options Still On Table

President Trump took to Truth Social on Tuesday to declare that all mines have been removed from the Strait of Hormuz - it what seems yet another attempt to declare all is well at a moment Washington has shifted from prior military operations to an economic 'strangulation' and siege policy targeting the Islamic Republic.

“I have just been informed by the United States Navy that all mines have been removed and/or detonated from within the International Waters of the Strait of Hormuz,” the President wrote on Tuesday. "Iran has been notified that any ship or boat placing new mines will be immediately and systematically destroyed. There is a Zero Tolerance policy on mine placement in full force and effect."

So while there is a temporary calm for now, also with Iran not having targeted foreign vessels in at least the last couple days, Trump is essentially saying military options remain on the table.

Below is the text of the full Truth Social Post [emphasis ZH]:

I have just been informed by the United States Navy that all mines have been removed and/or detonated from within the International Waters of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has been notified that any ship or boat placing new mines will be immediately and systematically destroyed. Through Space Force, we are watching every square inch of the Strait, as we are, also, with Pickaxe Mountain and the already destroyed three other Nuclear sites. There is a Zero Tolerance policy on mine placement in full force and effect. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

US officials along with reports in Axios and other outlets have touted US Navy assistance for a steady small 'stealth' stream of tankers still transiting the Strait each day with fighter jet monitoring operations near the Omani coastline.

Axios claimed for example that last week 15 million barrels of oil exited the waterway on a single day.

But some maritime monitor organizations and pundits remain skeptical, and the situation is muddied given that many ships must turn off their transponders if they choose to risk the passage, which for months has been subject to attack by Iranian drones and missiles.

This summer, for the first time in history, Trump threatened to bomb Muscat over negotiations with Tehran, given Iran has asserted that the Oman-brokered Hormuz management plan cuts the US out of the process.

Trump told Fox News journalist Trey Yingst: "If Oman gets in the way, we’ll bomb the sh*t out of them."

We have two different things being said (again):

1. POTUS: "all mines have been removed and/or detonated from within the International Waters of the Strait of Hormuz"https://t.co/A3Wfjn91KI

2. JMIC: "Navigation interference persists, and mine-risk reporting remains relevant… https://t.co/CtajLe21Vq pic.twitter.com/N8Q1d56z8R

— Charlie B (@supbrow) August 25, 2026

Coupled with this is Bessent's rollout on Monday of details of an economic 'D-Day' against Iran, saying that the country will be completely isolated from the world economy, and threatening secondary sanctions against any third party country that doesn't comply.

The big question remains whether Washington would actually go after China over violation of the new Iran restrictions, especially given China's President Xi Jinping is set to be hosted at the White House, just weeks away.

Tyler Durden Tue, 08/25/2026 - 14:40