Zero Hedge

Netanyahu Confirms, Apologizes For Mass Casualty Hospital Attack In Gaza: 'Tragic Mishap'

Netanyahu Confirms, Apologizes For Mass Casualty Hospital Attack In Gaza: 'Tragic Mishap'

Update(1615ET): Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has quickly offered confirmation that the Israeli military did indeed massacre at least 20 people at the Nasser Hospital complex in southern Gaza on Monday, which included the deaths of five journalists. He called it a "tragic mishap" and expressed deep "regret" - amid mounting international pressure and outrage.

Israeli media has since clarified that it was likely an attack by ground forces, as a tank fired on the group that was at the time responding to a prior strike (it's widely being described as a double-tap).

Israeli media details the following based on military sources:

Tank shelling carried out by the Israeli military on Nasser Hospital in the Khan Younis area of the southern Gaza Strip on Monday morning killed at least 20 people, including five journalists, according to media reports and the Hamas-run health ministry.

The Israel Defense Forces, some three hours after the reports of the attack emerged, confirmed that troops had carried out a strike in the area.

Footage showed rescue workers, who had arrived at the site of an initial attack, engulfed in smoke and debris when a second strike hit. Witnesses said journalists and other people had also rushed to the site of the first strike.

A military official told The Times of Israel that the attack was not conducted by the Israeli Air Force, indicating it was likely carried out by ground forces.

President Trump weighed in earlier from the Oval Office, but didn't have a lot to say on the specific attack, with many details still uncertain...

The attack has been taking over headlines throughout the day, and could result in Europe taking punitive measures against Israel.

* * *

More journalists with Al Jazeera have been killed in the Gaza Strip, the Qatar-based outlet has reported, in an Israeli airstrike which killed a total of 20 people.

Al Jazeera photographer Mohammad Salama is among the dead after a large Israeli aerial attack on Nasser Medical Complex in southern Gaza on Monday, with local sources describing it as a double-tap strike.

Al Jazeera screengrab showing slain Palestinian journalists.

Also among the dead are Mariam Dagga, a freelance journalist for The Associated Press, and a Reuters contractor cameraman identified as Hussam al-Masri. Another with Hamas' Quds Feed Network succumbed of his wounds.

The Hamas media office in a statement said, "The journalist colleagues were martyred when the Israeli occupation committed a horrific crime by bombing a group of journalists who were on a press coverage mission at Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis Governorate and many martyrs fell victim to this crime."

"We hold the Israeli occupation, the American administration, and the countries participating in the genocide crime such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France fully responsible for committing these heinous brutal crimes," it added.

The Associated Press has been among international outlets to say it was "shocked and saddened" by Dagga's death (its freelancer). And Reuters detailed:

Cameraman Hussam al-Masri, a Reuters contractor, was killed near a live broadcasting position operated by Reuters on an upper floor just below the roof of the hospital in Khan Younis in an initial strike, according to Palestinian health officials.

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) confirmed the attack but said it did not intentionally target journalists. 

"The IDF regrets any harm to uninvolved individuals and does not target journalists as such," the military said in a statement. "The IDF acts to mitigate harm to uninvolved individuals as much as possible while maintaining the safety of IDF troops."

Israel's military has routinely accused Arab media outlets like Al Jazeera of being 'pro Hamas' or even at times cooperating with terrorists. Previously Israel has raided Al Jazeera offices in the West Bank and Jerusalem. 

Widely-circulating disturbing video purporting to show a strike which killed journalists and paramedics: 

In 2024 Israeli authorities confiscated office equipment and shuttered Al Jazeera's operations in Ramallah and inside Israel.

This latest mass casualty attack will serve to keep Israel under international scrutiny and pressure. Currently a growing list of European countries plan to formally recognize a state of Palestine at the UN in September. PM Netanyahu has meanwhile articulated that alongside a ground war in Gaza, and wars in nearby Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon - Israel is fighting a 'media war'.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 16:15

The Big Beautiful Bill Brings Big Changes For Taxpayers

The Big Beautiful Bill Brings Big Changes For Taxpayers

Authored by Sandra Block via Kiplinger's Perosnal Finance,

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump on July 4, includes tax breaks for an expansive range of taxpayers, while scrapping credits for energy-saving vehicles and home improvements.

More broadly, the legislation makes the tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, which means tax rates won’t increase after 2025. Here’s a look at how other provisions in the bill could affect your taxes.

Older Adults

Larger Standard Deduction

Starting in the 2025 tax year, those who are 65 or older will be eligible for an additional standard deduction of $6,000. The bonus deduction comes on top of an existing increase in the standard deduction of $2,000 for single filers who are 65 or older; for married couples who file jointly, it’s $1,600 for each spouse 65 or older.

The expanded deduction means an eligible taxpayer with a filing status of single will be able to deduct up to $23,750 from taxable income, while a married couple will qualify for a deduction of up to $46,700, assuming both are 65 or older.

The deduction starts to phase out for couples with modified adjusted gross income of more than $150,000 and is fully phased out at MAGI of $250,000 ($75,000 and $175,000 for single filers). This new deduction is available for 2025 through 2028.

The legislation won’t eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. But by lowering taxable income, it will reduce the number of beneficiaries who pay the taxes from 36 percent to 12 percent, according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Estate Tax Exemption

As a result of the legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers won’t have to worry about paying federal estate taxes. The law increases the estate tax exemption, which is $13.99 million per person in 2025, to $15 million per person, or $30 million for a married couple, in 2026. The exemption will then be adjusted annually for inflation. Without congressional action, the exemption would have dropped to about $7 million after 2025.

Homeowners

Property Tax Deduction

Homeowners will be able to deduct up to $40,000 in state and local taxes, up from a cap of $10,000. The higher cap takes effect for 2025 and lasts through 2029, and it will be increased by one percentage point each year until returning to the $10,000 cap in 2030. The higher cap phases out for homeowners with MAGI above $500,000 ($250,000 for a married individual filing separately). Taxpayers with MAGI of $600,000 or more will be ineligible for the increase. You must itemize to claim this deduction.

Credit for Energy-Efficient Home Improvements

Planning to install rooftop solar panels? Get busy, because a tax credit for these improvements will expire at the end of 2025. The Residential Clean Energy Credit, which provides a 30 percent tax credit toward the cost of buying and installing solar panels, solar water heaters, or other energy-saving measures, was previously scheduled to phase out in 2033. To claim the credit on your 2025 tax return, you’ll need to start work by the end of the year.

Families

Extension of the Child Tax Credit

The bill permanently extends the child tax credit and increases the amount of the credit to $2,200 per child, up from $2,000.

Savings Accounts for Kids

The law creates a new tax-advantaged savings account for children. Until the child turns 18, parents, grandparents and others can contribute up to $5,000 a year to the account, where the money is invested in a fund that tracks a stock index and grows tax-deferred. Parents of children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, will be eligible to receive $1,000 in federal seed money to start the account.

Car Buyers

Deduction on Car Loan Interest

Taxpayers will be eligible to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on loans for cars purchased between 2025 and 2028. You don’t have to itemize to claim this deduction, but it’s available only for loans taken out to buy new cars assembled in the United States. The deduction phases out for individuals earning more than $100,000 or married couples making over $200,000.

Credit for Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Charging Stations

The $7,500 tax credit to buy or lease qualified EVs, along with the $4,000 credit for eligible used EVs, will end September 30, 2025.

Workers

Tip Income

Eligible tipped workers will be able to deduct up to $25,000 in tips a year from 2025 through 2028. The tax break will decrease by $100 for every $1,000 of MAGI over $150,000 for single filers and $300,000 for joint filers. You don’t need to itemize to claim this deduction.

Overtime Pay

From 2025 through 2028, workers will be allowed to deduct up to $12,500 a year in overtime pay, or $25,000 if they’re married and file jointly. This phases out for single filers with MAGI of more than $150,000 and joint filers with MAGI over $300,000.

©2025 The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:45

The Big Beautiful Bill Brings Big Changes For Taxpayers

The Big Beautiful Bill Brings Big Changes For Taxpayers

Authored by Sandra Block via Kiplinger's Perosnal Finance,

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed by President Trump on July 4, includes tax breaks for an expansive range of taxpayers, while scrapping credits for energy-saving vehicles and home improvements.

More broadly, the legislation makes the tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent, which means tax rates won’t increase after 2025. Here’s a look at how other provisions in the bill could affect your taxes.

Older Adults

Larger Standard Deduction

Starting in the 2025 tax year, those who are 65 or older will be eligible for an additional standard deduction of $6,000. The bonus deduction comes on top of an existing increase in the standard deduction of $2,000 for single filers who are 65 or older; for married couples who file jointly, it’s $1,600 for each spouse 65 or older.

The expanded deduction means an eligible taxpayer with a filing status of single will be able to deduct up to $23,750 from taxable income, while a married couple will qualify for a deduction of up to $46,700, assuming both are 65 or older.

The deduction starts to phase out for couples with modified adjusted gross income of more than $150,000 and is fully phased out at MAGI of $250,000 ($75,000 and $175,000 for single filers). This new deduction is available for 2025 through 2028.

The legislation won’t eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits. But by lowering taxable income, it will reduce the number of beneficiaries who pay the taxes from 36 percent to 12 percent, according to the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

Estate Tax Exemption

As a result of the legislation, the vast majority of taxpayers won’t have to worry about paying federal estate taxes. The law increases the estate tax exemption, which is $13.99 million per person in 2025, to $15 million per person, or $30 million for a married couple, in 2026. The exemption will then be adjusted annually for inflation. Without congressional action, the exemption would have dropped to about $7 million after 2025.

Homeowners

Property Tax Deduction

Homeowners will be able to deduct up to $40,000 in state and local taxes, up from a cap of $10,000. The higher cap takes effect for 2025 and lasts through 2029, and it will be increased by one percentage point each year until returning to the $10,000 cap in 2030. The higher cap phases out for homeowners with MAGI above $500,000 ($250,000 for a married individual filing separately). Taxpayers with MAGI of $600,000 or more will be ineligible for the increase. You must itemize to claim this deduction.

Credit for Energy-Efficient Home Improvements

Planning to install rooftop solar panels? Get busy, because a tax credit for these improvements will expire at the end of 2025. The Residential Clean Energy Credit, which provides a 30 percent tax credit toward the cost of buying and installing solar panels, solar water heaters, or other energy-saving measures, was previously scheduled to phase out in 2033. To claim the credit on your 2025 tax return, you’ll need to start work by the end of the year.

Families

Extension of the Child Tax Credit

The bill permanently extends the child tax credit and increases the amount of the credit to $2,200 per child, up from $2,000.

Savings Accounts for Kids

The law creates a new tax-advantaged savings account for children. Until the child turns 18, parents, grandparents and others can contribute up to $5,000 a year to the account, where the money is invested in a fund that tracks a stock index and grows tax-deferred. Parents of children born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, will be eligible to receive $1,000 in federal seed money to start the account.

Car Buyers

Deduction on Car Loan Interest

Taxpayers will be eligible to deduct up to $10,000 in interest on loans for cars purchased between 2025 and 2028. You don’t have to itemize to claim this deduction, but it’s available only for loans taken out to buy new cars assembled in the United States. The deduction phases out for individuals earning more than $100,000 or married couples making over $200,000.

Credit for Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Charging Stations

The $7,500 tax credit to buy or lease qualified EVs, along with the $4,000 credit for eligible used EVs, will end September 30, 2025.

Workers

Tip Income

Eligible tipped workers will be able to deduct up to $25,000 in tips a year from 2025 through 2028. The tax break will decrease by $100 for every $1,000 of MAGI over $150,000 for single filers and $300,000 for joint filers. You don’t need to itemize to claim this deduction.

Overtime Pay

From 2025 through 2028, workers will be allowed to deduct up to $12,500 a year in overtime pay, or $25,000 if they’re married and file jointly. This phases out for single filers with MAGI of more than $150,000 and joint filers with MAGI over $300,000.

©2025 The Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:45

San Francisco Judge Forces Trump To Keep Funding Sanctuary Cities

San Francisco Judge Forces Trump To Keep Funding Sanctuary Cities

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Friday that the Trump administration cannot suspend funding to 34 'sanctuary' cities which limit or refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest a illegal immmigrant during an operation in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City on April 11, 2018. John Moore/Getty Images

US District Judge William Orrick  - a rich kid lawyer appointed by former President Barack Obama to the US District Court for the Northern District of California - ordered the extension of a preliminary injunction barring the administration from blocking funding or placing conditions on federal  funding for those jurisdictions. Orrick also prevented the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on two particular grant programs. 

The Trump administration initially tried to block funding to dozens of cities and counties over sanctuary city policies - cutting off their Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants due to noncompliance with federal immigration enforcement. 

The protected cities include; Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Baltimore, San Jose, San Diego and others - while major counties covered include Multnomah County in Oregon, which encompasses Portland; Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, which encompasses Pittsburgh; and Hennepin County in Minnesota, which encompasses Minneapolis, the Epoch Times reports, nothing further; 

The Trump administration has ratcheted up pressure on sanctuary communities as it seeks to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to remove millions of people who are in the country illegally.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions. Another order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a list of more than 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” and said that all of those municipalities and counties would be sent a formal notification deeming them to be noncompliant with the Trump administration’s orders. Those officials would also be informed by DHS on whether they were said to be in violation of any federal laws.

Orrick said in his order that the administration’s decisions to withhold federal funding in those jurisdictions are a “coercive threat” that he deemed to be “unconstitutional.”

US District Judge William Orrick III

“I determined that the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that defendants’ actions with respect to the enjoined executive orders and related agency directives were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act,” he wrote.

In recent months, the Justice Department has ramped up pressure on several major cities over such policies. For example, the department filed a lawsuit against New York City and Mayor Eric Adams’s administration challenging the city’s laws on how it handles illegal immigrants.

“New York City has released thousands of criminals on the streets to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens due to sanctuary city policies,” Bondi said in a statement last month in announcing the legal challenge. “If New York City won’t stand up for the safety of its citizens, we will.”

Her office has also filed similar lawsuits targeting New York state, Colorado, Illinois, Los Angeles, several cities in New Jersey, and Rochester in New York, according to the statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:25

San Francisco Judge Forces Trump To Keep Funding Sanctuary Cities

San Francisco Judge Forces Trump To Keep Funding Sanctuary Cities

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled on Friday that the Trump administration cannot suspend funding to 34 'sanctuary' cities which limit or refuse cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrest a illegal immmigrant during an operation in the Bushwick neighborhood of Brooklyn in New York City on April 11, 2018. John Moore/Getty Images

US District Judge William Orrick  - a rich kid lawyer appointed by former President Barack Obama to the US District Court for the Northern District of California - ordered the extension of a preliminary injunction barring the administration from blocking funding or placing conditions on federal  funding for those jurisdictions. Orrick also prevented the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on two particular grant programs. 

The Trump administration initially tried to block funding to dozens of cities and counties over sanctuary city policies - cutting off their Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants due to noncompliance with federal immigration enforcement. 

The protected cities include; Boston, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Albuquerque, Baltimore, San Jose, San Diego and others - while major counties covered include Multnomah County in Oregon, which encompasses Portland; Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, which encompasses Pittsburgh; and Hennepin County in Minnesota, which encompasses Minneapolis, the Epoch Times reports, nothing further; 

The Trump administration has ratcheted up pressure on sanctuary communities as it seeks to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to remove millions of people who are in the country illegally.

One executive order issued by Trump directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to withhold federal money from sanctuary jurisdictions. Another order directs every federal agency to ensure that payments to state and local governments do not “abet so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies that seek to shield illegal aliens from deportation.”

In May, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a list of more than 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” and said that all of those municipalities and counties would be sent a formal notification deeming them to be noncompliant with the Trump administration’s orders. Those officials would also be informed by DHS on whether they were said to be in violation of any federal laws.

Orrick said in his order that the administration’s decisions to withhold federal funding in those jurisdictions are a “coercive threat” that he deemed to be “unconstitutional.”

US District Judge William Orrick III

“I determined that the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that defendants’ actions with respect to the enjoined executive orders and related agency directives were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act,” he wrote.

In recent months, the Justice Department has ramped up pressure on several major cities over such policies. For example, the department filed a lawsuit against New York City and Mayor Eric Adams’s administration challenging the city’s laws on how it handles illegal immigrants.

“New York City has released thousands of criminals on the streets to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens due to sanctuary city policies,” Bondi said in a statement last month in announcing the legal challenge. “If New York City won’t stand up for the safety of its citizens, we will.”

Her office has also filed similar lawsuits targeting New York state, Colorado, Illinois, Los Angeles, several cities in New Jersey, and Rochester in New York, according to the statement.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:25

What To Know About California's Redistricting Ballot Measure

What To Know About California's Redistricting Ballot Measure

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

On Nov. 4, Californians will go to the polls to vote in a referendum over whether to authorize replacing the state’s current congressional map with one designed to favor Democrats - a decision usually made by an independent commission.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Aug. 21 to authorize the referendum. Democrats say the measure is meant to “fight fire with fire” after Texas moved forward with redistricting efforts to favor Republicans in the next election.

The California Legislature rushed the bill forward during a special session called by Newsom after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott convened the Texas Legislature to carry out its redistricting efforts.

Critics have condemned the Californian measure as unconstitutional, pointing to a current provision in the state’s Constitution that removes districting powers from the Legislature and governor.

Here’s what to know.

Bypasses Independent Districting Commission

California’s current congressional maps were adopted following the 2020 census. These maps, drawn by the politically neutral California Citizens Redistricting Commission, went into effect in 2022.

In a 2008 referendum, California voters approved a constitutional amendment that moved control of redistricting in the Golden State to the independent commission.

Democrats currently control 43 seats in the U.S. House delegation while Republicans hold nine.

Under the amendment, the California Legislature and governor are largely written out of the process of redistricting.

To get around that, voters will be asked to give their consent to approve the new maps that will last only for a limited time—dubbed Proposition 50 for the 50 U.S. states.

The maps voters are being asked to approve by Prop 50 would redraw the boundaries for five GOP-controlled districts, moving historically Democratic voters into the districts to increase Democrats’ chances of taking the seats.

How Long Will it Last

The changes to the map would last through the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles.

At that point, following the 2030 census, control of the process would be returned to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, with new maps going into effect in 2032 and beyond.

The text of the ballot measure cites a goal to “neutralize” efforts by Republicans to redraw congressional maps in their party’s favor in Texas.

“It is the intent of the people that California’s temporary maps be designed to neutralize the partisan gerrymandering being threatened by Republican-led states without eroding fair representation for all communities,” it reads.

Five GOP Seats Threatened

While Republicans are already a minority in the Democrat-dominated state, they could lose as many as five more seats in the high-stakes 2026 midterms if the revised maps in California are approved.

Three California Republicans—Reps. Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Ken Calvert—are particularly endangered by the changes to the map, as their districts are on track to be inundated by voters who backed Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

Kiley, whose seat is most at risk of being flipped under the redrawn maps, has criticized both California and Texas for their redistricting efforts.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) speaks during a press conference at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles on Feb. 20, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

A bill introduced by Kiley would ban mid-decade redistricting entirely.

Two other GOP seats, currently held by Reps. Darrell Issa and David Valadao, will face tougher reelection bids under the redrawn maps but could still stay under GOP control, according to projections by The Cook Political Report.

It’s Up to Californian Voters

The 2008 amendment to the state’s Constitution has long been popular with voters, and Newsom and other California Democrats will need to campaign for the measure to push Prop 50 over the finish line.

A Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab poll conducted between July 28 and Aug. 12 asked Californians whether they would “support keeping the independent redistricting commission” or “support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators.”

It found that 64 percent backed the independent commission, and only 36 percent backed giving authority to state legislators. California Democrats seemed resistant to Newsom’s referendum, with 61 percent still favoring the independent commission. However, when Democratic policy influencers were polled, they were split evenly between the independent commission and state legislators.

Republicans and Independents backed the independent commission by 66 and 72 percent, respectively.

However, the poll didn’t ask voters about the temporary change being proposed under Prop 50.

The text of the ballot measure emphasizes the temporary nature of the changes.

It says that the redrawn maps will “temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.”

It also emphasizes that the Citizens Redistricting Commission “shall continue to adjust the boundary lines” of federal and state-level districts “in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter.”

A more recent poll by UC Berkeley IGS found more favorable signs for Democrats. It found that 48 percent of voters approve of the new map and 32 percent oppose the redistricting effort, with 20 percent undecided.

A Politico/Citron poll found that nationally, 63 percent of Democrats supported California’s redistricting effort, 18 percent supported the independent commission, and 19 percent were undecided.

Reactions

In both California and nationally, the redistricting efforts have drawn mixed reactions.

Former President Barack Obama expressed support for Newsom’s move.

“I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” he said at an Aug. 19 fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.

“We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”

Former President Barack Obama at the Obama Foundation's 2024 Democracy Forum on Dec. 5, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. Scott Olson/Getty Images

In an interview with California Capitol journalist Eytan Wallace, state Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego, described the push as a “corrupt, illegitimate, and illegal effort by politicians to remove citizens from [the process of] drawing the lines and [give] the power back to politicians.”

DeMaio also criticized the Republicans’ bid to increase their hold on the Texas House delegation, saying, “Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who’s doing it, whether it’s done by a red state or a blue state.”

“We want the citizens to be able to draw the lines, not the politicians,” he said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s main campaign arm, also accused Newsom of violating the California Constitution.

“Newsom’s made it clear: He’ll shred California’s Constitution and trample over democracy—running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority,” Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:00

What To Know About California's Redistricting Ballot Measure

What To Know About California's Redistricting Ballot Measure

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

On Nov. 4, Californians will go to the polls to vote in a referendum over whether to authorize replacing the state’s current congressional map with one designed to favor Democrats - a decision usually made by an independent commission.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill on Aug. 21 to authorize the referendum. Democrats say the measure is meant to “fight fire with fire” after Texas moved forward with redistricting efforts to favor Republicans in the next election.

The California Legislature rushed the bill forward during a special session called by Newsom after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott convened the Texas Legislature to carry out its redistricting efforts.

Critics have condemned the Californian measure as unconstitutional, pointing to a current provision in the state’s Constitution that removes districting powers from the Legislature and governor.

Here’s what to know.

Bypasses Independent Districting Commission

California’s current congressional maps were adopted following the 2020 census. These maps, drawn by the politically neutral California Citizens Redistricting Commission, went into effect in 2022.

In a 2008 referendum, California voters approved a constitutional amendment that moved control of redistricting in the Golden State to the independent commission.

Democrats currently control 43 seats in the U.S. House delegation while Republicans hold nine.

Under the amendment, the California Legislature and governor are largely written out of the process of redistricting.

To get around that, voters will be asked to give their consent to approve the new maps that will last only for a limited time—dubbed Proposition 50 for the 50 U.S. states.

The maps voters are being asked to approve by Prop 50 would redraw the boundaries for five GOP-controlled districts, moving historically Democratic voters into the districts to increase Democrats’ chances of taking the seats.

How Long Will it Last

The changes to the map would last through the 2026, 2028, and 2030 election cycles.

At that point, following the 2030 census, control of the process would be returned to the Citizens Redistricting Commission, with new maps going into effect in 2032 and beyond.

The text of the ballot measure cites a goal to “neutralize” efforts by Republicans to redraw congressional maps in their party’s favor in Texas.

“It is the intent of the people that California’s temporary maps be designed to neutralize the partisan gerrymandering being threatened by Republican-led states without eroding fair representation for all communities,” it reads.

Five GOP Seats Threatened

While Republicans are already a minority in the Democrat-dominated state, they could lose as many as five more seats in the high-stakes 2026 midterms if the revised maps in California are approved.

Three California Republicans—Reps. Kevin Kiley, Doug LaMalfa, and Ken Calvert—are particularly endangered by the changes to the map, as their districts are on track to be inundated by voters who backed Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

Kiley, whose seat is most at risk of being flipped under the redrawn maps, has criticized both California and Texas for their redistricting efforts.

U.S. Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.) speaks during a press conference at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles on Feb. 20, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

A bill introduced by Kiley would ban mid-decade redistricting entirely.

Two other GOP seats, currently held by Reps. Darrell Issa and David Valadao, will face tougher reelection bids under the redrawn maps but could still stay under GOP control, according to projections by The Cook Political Report.

It’s Up to Californian Voters

The 2008 amendment to the state’s Constitution has long been popular with voters, and Newsom and other California Democrats will need to campaign for the measure to push Prop 50 over the finish line.

A Politico/Citrin Center/Possibility Lab poll conducted between July 28 and Aug. 12 asked Californians whether they would “support keeping the independent redistricting commission” or “support returning congressional redistricting authority to state legislators.”

It found that 64 percent backed the independent commission, and only 36 percent backed giving authority to state legislators. California Democrats seemed resistant to Newsom’s referendum, with 61 percent still favoring the independent commission. However, when Democratic policy influencers were polled, they were split evenly between the independent commission and state legislators.

Republicans and Independents backed the independent commission by 66 and 72 percent, respectively.

However, the poll didn’t ask voters about the temporary change being proposed under Prop 50.

The text of the ballot measure emphasizes the temporary nature of the changes.

It says that the redrawn maps will “temporarily be used for every congressional election for a term of office commencing on or after the date this subdivision becomes operative and before the certification of new congressional boundary lines drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.”

It also emphasizes that the Citizens Redistricting Commission “shall continue to adjust the boundary lines” of federal and state-level districts “in 2031, and every 10 years thereafter.”

A more recent poll by UC Berkeley IGS found more favorable signs for Democrats. It found that 48 percent of voters approve of the new map and 32 percent oppose the redistricting effort, with 20 percent undecided.

A Politico/Citron poll found that nationally, 63 percent of Democrats supported California’s redistricting effort, 18 percent supported the independent commission, and 19 percent were undecided.

Reactions

In both California and nationally, the redistricting efforts have drawn mixed reactions.

Former President Barack Obama expressed support for Newsom’s move.

“I believe that Gov. Newsom’s approach is a responsible approach. He said this is going to be responsible. We’re not going to try to completely maximize it,” he said at an Aug. 19 fundraiser on Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts.

“We’re only going to do it if and when Texas and/or other Republican states begin to pull these maneuvers. Otherwise, this doesn’t go into effect.”

Former President Barack Obama at the Obama Foundation's 2024 Democracy Forum on Dec. 5, 2024 in Chicago, Illinois. Scott Olson/Getty Images

In an interview with California Capitol journalist Eytan Wallace, state Assemblyman Carl DeMaio, a Republican from San Diego, described the push as a “corrupt, illegitimate, and illegal effort by politicians to remove citizens from [the process of] drawing the lines and [give] the power back to politicians.”

DeMaio also criticized the Republicans’ bid to increase their hold on the Texas House delegation, saying, “Gerrymandering is wrong no matter who’s doing it, whether it’s done by a red state or a blue state.”

“We want the citizens to be able to draw the lines, not the politicians,” he said.

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the House GOP’s main campaign arm, also accused Newsom of violating the California Constitution.

“Newsom’s made it clear: He’ll shred California’s Constitution and trample over democracy—running a cynical, self-serving playbook where Californians are an afterthought and power is the only priority,” Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the group, said in a statement.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 15:00

Tensions On Korean Peninsula Spike As Warning Shots Fired Along DMZ

Tensions On Korean Peninsula Spike As Warning Shots Fired Along DMZ

Via The Libertarian Institute

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are spiking as South Korean troops fired on North Korean soldiers near the demilitarized zone. The friction between Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington has escalated due to large-scale US and South Korean war games. 

Seoul claimed on Saturday that its forces had fired on North Korean soldiers who had crossed the DMZ. Pyongyang strongly condemned the South Korean soldiers’ actions. A North Korean official explained that Pyongyang informed Washington that its troops would be operating near the border to avoid a misunderstanding. 

TANK Magazine: Park Jongwoo, image from DMZ: Demilitarized Zone of Korea, 2017, published by Steidl

Ko Jong Chol Army Lieutenant General Ko Jong Chol, vice-chief of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army said, “On August 19, the ROK military warmongers committed such a serious provocation as firing more than 10 warning shots with 12.7 mm large-caliber machine gun at the DPRK soldiers who were conducting a permanent barrier project near the southern border line.”

“This is a very serious prelude that would inevitably drive the situation in the southern border area where a huge number of forces are stationing in confrontation with each other to the uncontrollable phase and the DPRK army is keeping tabs on the present situation,” he added. 

The warning shots were fired as the US and South Korea are conducting large-scale, live-fire war games. The military drills are running for 11 days and involve 21,000 soldiers. Pyongyang slammed the war games as extremely provocative: 

“The joint military drill being staged on land, at sea and in the air of the ROK under the deceptive signboard of ‘shield of freedom,’ is an extremely provocative and aggressive large-scale drill for an actual war aimed at a sudden preemptive attack on North Korea.”

The North Korean spokesman continued, “The gravity and danger of the drill lie in the fact that it includes the application of ‘OPLAN 2022,’ a war scenario simulating ‘preemptive strike’ against the nuclear facilities of the DPRK.”

Trump: "I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. I look forward to seeing him again. I know him better than almost anybody other than his sister. She knows him pretty well."

Additionally, Pyongyang tested two new types of air defense missiles. The large-scale annual war games conducted by the US and South Korea often cause a spike in tensions. North Korea typically responds with fiery rhetoric, missile tests, and reciprocal military drills.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:40

Tensions On Korean Peninsula Spike As Warning Shots Fired Along DMZ

Tensions On Korean Peninsula Spike As Warning Shots Fired Along DMZ

Via The Libertarian Institute

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are spiking as South Korean troops fired on North Korean soldiers near the demilitarized zone. The friction between Pyongyang, Seoul, and Washington has escalated due to large-scale US and South Korean war games. 

Seoul claimed on Saturday that its forces had fired on North Korean soldiers who had crossed the DMZ. Pyongyang strongly condemned the South Korean soldiers’ actions. A North Korean official explained that Pyongyang informed Washington that its troops would be operating near the border to avoid a misunderstanding. 

TANK Magazine: Park Jongwoo, image from DMZ: Demilitarized Zone of Korea, 2017, published by Steidl

Ko Jong Chol Army Lieutenant General Ko Jong Chol, vice-chief of the General Staff of the Korean People’s Army said, “On August 19, the ROK military warmongers committed such a serious provocation as firing more than 10 warning shots with 12.7 mm large-caliber machine gun at the DPRK soldiers who were conducting a permanent barrier project near the southern border line.”

“This is a very serious prelude that would inevitably drive the situation in the southern border area where a huge number of forces are stationing in confrontation with each other to the uncontrollable phase and the DPRK army is keeping tabs on the present situation,” he added. 

The warning shots were fired as the US and South Korea are conducting large-scale, live-fire war games. The military drills are running for 11 days and involve 21,000 soldiers. Pyongyang slammed the war games as extremely provocative: 

“The joint military drill being staged on land, at sea and in the air of the ROK under the deceptive signboard of ‘shield of freedom,’ is an extremely provocative and aggressive large-scale drill for an actual war aimed at a sudden preemptive attack on North Korea.”

The North Korean spokesman continued, “The gravity and danger of the drill lie in the fact that it includes the application of ‘OPLAN 2022,’ a war scenario simulating ‘preemptive strike’ against the nuclear facilities of the DPRK.”

Trump: "I have a very good relationship with Kim Jong Un of North Korea. I look forward to seeing him again. I know him better than almost anybody other than his sister. She knows him pretty well."

Additionally, Pyongyang tested two new types of air defense missiles. The large-scale annual war games conducted by the US and South Korea often cause a spike in tensions. North Korea typically responds with fiery rhetoric, missile tests, and reciprocal military drills.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:40

CDC Advisory Committee Launches Review Of COVID-19 Vaccines

CDC Advisory Committee Launches Review Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is going to review various aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including concerns about the persistence of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), according to a new document.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) work group on COVID-19 vaccines will review data on the shots related to their safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity, according to the Aug. 20 document, which was released by the CDC.

Members also plan to look at gaps in existing knowledge “relating to bio distribution, pharmacokinetics, and persistence of the spike protein, mRNA, and lipid nanoparticles to inform immunization recommendations,” the document states.

Studies have found that the spike protein and mRNA in the vaccines persist for some time. Lipid nanoparticles are used to deliver the mRNA.

Other areas of focus for the group include potential impurities such as contamination by DNA, the impact of repeated booster doses on immune systems, how both COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 have affected all-cause deaths and hospitalizations, and serious adverse events potentially caused by the vaccines.

After reviewing the data and consulting with experts at the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and outside the government, the group plans on issuing new recommendations regarding the shots.

Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been named chair of the work group.

“My goal as the WG [work group] chair is to work with my colleagues at ACIP, the CDC and FDA experts and the external experts to openly study the range of issues and questions outlined in the Terms of Reference, to inform the best science and evidence-based policy recommendations, and having the health and safety of patients front in mind,” Levi told The Epoch Times in an email.

Levi has previously called for halting the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, citing concerns with safety and effectiveness.

Pfizer and Moderna have not responded to requests for comment.

The CDC says on its website that the COVID-19 vaccination “helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death.” It has acknowledged some side effects, including heart inflammation.

Under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC earlier this year stopped recommending COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women.

Kennedy subsequently removed all members of ACIP and appointed Levi and others to replace them.

The CDC had for years recommended that all people aged 6 months and older receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

The previous advisory panel had been considering recommending the CDC shift to a non-universal recommendation.

ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone, who is serving on the COVID-19 vaccine work group, said on his blog that establishing topics for the group to review was a sign of progress.

“I am sorry it is so slow (and frustrating for all concerned), but we now have the authorization to look deeply into the big questions,” he wrote.

“Hopefully, we will have some answers by the upcoming ACIP general meeting.”

The next ACIP meeting is slated to take place in August or September, according to the committee’s website. Another meeting is due to take place on Oct. 22 and Oct. 23.

ACIP member Dr. James Pagano will also serve on the working group.

Other members of the group have not been disclosed, and Levi declined to name them.

The document says the group “is composed of experts who are appointed based on their professional, scientific, technical, or other expertise.”

CDC employees will no longer be able to serve as members, according to the document, although they can still present to the panel, which meets behind closed doors.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:20

CDC Advisory Committee Launches Review Of COVID-19 Vaccines

CDC Advisory Committee Launches Review Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is going to review various aspects of COVID-19 vaccines, including concerns about the persistence of messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA), according to a new document.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) work group on COVID-19 vaccines will review data on the shots related to their safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity, according to the Aug. 20 document, which was released by the CDC.

Members also plan to look at gaps in existing knowledge “relating to bio distribution, pharmacokinetics, and persistence of the spike protein, mRNA, and lipid nanoparticles to inform immunization recommendations,” the document states.

Studies have found that the spike protein and mRNA in the vaccines persist for some time. Lipid nanoparticles are used to deliver the mRNA.

Other areas of focus for the group include potential impurities such as contamination by DNA, the impact of repeated booster doses on immune systems, how both COVID-19 vaccines and COVID-19 have affected all-cause deaths and hospitalizations, and serious adverse events potentially caused by the vaccines.

After reviewing the data and consulting with experts at the CDC, the Food and Drug Administration, and outside the government, the group plans on issuing new recommendations regarding the shots.

Retsef Levi, a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been named chair of the work group.

“My goal as the WG [work group] chair is to work with my colleagues at ACIP, the CDC and FDA experts and the external experts to openly study the range of issues and questions outlined in the Terms of Reference, to inform the best science and evidence-based policy recommendations, and having the health and safety of patients front in mind,” Levi told The Epoch Times in an email.

Levi has previously called for halting the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, citing concerns with safety and effectiveness.

Pfizer and Moderna have not responded to requests for comment.

The CDC says on its website that the COVID-19 vaccination “helps protect you from severe illness, hospitalization, and death.” It has acknowledged some side effects, including heart inflammation.

Under orders from Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC earlier this year stopped recommending COVID-19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant women.

Kennedy subsequently removed all members of ACIP and appointed Levi and others to replace them.

The CDC had for years recommended that all people aged 6 months and older receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

The previous advisory panel had been considering recommending the CDC shift to a non-universal recommendation.

ACIP member Dr. Robert Malone, who is serving on the COVID-19 vaccine work group, said on his blog that establishing topics for the group to review was a sign of progress.

“I am sorry it is so slow (and frustrating for all concerned), but we now have the authorization to look deeply into the big questions,” he wrote.

“Hopefully, we will have some answers by the upcoming ACIP general meeting.”

The next ACIP meeting is slated to take place in August or September, according to the committee’s website. Another meeting is due to take place on Oct. 22 and Oct. 23.

ACIP member Dr. James Pagano will also serve on the working group.

Other members of the group have not been disclosed, and Levi declined to name them.

The document says the group “is composed of experts who are appointed based on their professional, scientific, technical, or other expertise.”

CDC employees will no longer be able to serve as members, according to the document, although they can still present to the panel, which meets behind closed doors.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:20

Trump Signs Order Targeting American-Flag-Burning, Desecration

Trump Signs Order Targeting American-Flag-Burning, Desecration

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 25 that directs the attorney general to prosecute those caught burning the American flag or desecrating it in other ways.

"If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail," Trump said.

"You will see flag burning stop immediately."

“The people in our country don’t want to see our flag burned and spit on.”

As Travis Gillmore reports for The Epoch Times, the order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to send appropriate cases to state and local authorities and to pursue charges in line with the First Amendment.

"We will do that without running afoul of the First Amendment," Bondi said.

Burning U.S. flags as a form of political protest was popularized during the Vietnam War, leading to the Flag Protection Act of 1968, which outlawed burning, defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling the flag.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1989, Texas v. Johnson, overturned the law and declared the act of flag desecration protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

“It was a very sad court, a 5–4 decision,” Trump said.

In that case, a Texas court convicted Gregory Lee Johnson of burning an American flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after marching with protesters.

“The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word,” Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the court‘s opinion.

“It may not, however, proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements.”

The president said the issue goes beyond speech, as it can lead to violence.

“When you burn the American flag, it incites riots,” Trump said.

We give Matt Taibbi the final word on this decision by The White House...

We cannot have First Amendment rights for me, but not for thee under Trump... we had that for four years under Biden!

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:00

Trump Signs Order Targeting American-Flag-Burning, Desecration

Trump Signs Order Targeting American-Flag-Burning, Desecration

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 25 that directs the attorney general to prosecute those caught burning the American flag or desecrating it in other ways.

"If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail," Trump said.

"You will see flag burning stop immediately."

“The people in our country don’t want to see our flag burned and spit on.”

As Travis Gillmore reports for The Epoch Times, the order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to send appropriate cases to state and local authorities and to pursue charges in line with the First Amendment.

"We will do that without running afoul of the First Amendment," Bondi said.

Burning U.S. flags as a form of political protest was popularized during the Vietnam War, leading to the Flag Protection Act of 1968, which outlawed burning, defacing, defiling, mutilating, or trampling the flag.

A Supreme Court ruling in 1989, Texas v. Johnson, overturned the law and declared the act of flag desecration protected as symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

“It was a very sad court, a 5–4 decision,” Trump said.

In that case, a Texas court convicted Gregory Lee Johnson of burning an American flag outside the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas after marching with protesters.

“The government generally has a freer hand in restricting expressive conduct than it has in restricting the written or spoken word,” Justice William J. Brennan wrote in the court‘s opinion.

“It may not, however, proscribe particular conduct because it has expressive elements.”

The president said the issue goes beyond speech, as it can lead to violence.

“When you burn the American flag, it incites riots,” Trump said.

We give Matt Taibbi the final word on this decision by The White House...

We cannot have First Amendment rights for me, but not for thee under Trump... we had that for four years under Biden!

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 14:00

'Buy Every Dip' Remains The Winning Strategy... For Now

'Buy Every Dip' Remains The Winning Strategy... For Now

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

“Buy Every Dip” has lately been the “Siren’s Song” for this market. Such is seen in the flows into ETFs over the course of this year. Retail investors treat pullbacks as temporary noise, and their behavior borders on mechanical. Every sell-off is seen as an opportunity, not a warning. Meanwhile, institutional managers sit it out. They raise cash, hedge risk, and wait for confirmation.

The difference between these two groups has never been more obvious. Retail enthusiasm is driven by momentum and reinforced by platforms like Reddit and TikTok. But it’s more than emotion. There’s structure behind it. Passive indexing distorts the market. The rise of ETFs, driven by automatic inflows, has created a built-in safety net. Prices fall, flows continue. That cushions the blow and speeds up recovery. Retail investors see this and assume every dip will bounce.

However, it’s a dangerous assumption.

While passive flows now dominate the tape, investors are not making decisions. Michael Green noted that “the market has become a giant mindless robot” in describing the enormous, passive capital flows that automatically push stock prices higher. This metaphor refers to the mechanical, non-discretionary purchasing by index funds and other passive investment vehicles that dominate today’s market. The problem is that these flows are “valuation insensitive.” We made such a point in Jesse Livermore’s Approach to Speculation.” To wit:

“Passive funds track indexes weighted by market capitalization. As stock prices rise, these funds buy more of the same names, regardless of valuation or fundamentals. This mechanical process has inflated the market value of the largest companies. The top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 now account for more than 38% of the index. That level of passive index concentration has not been seen since the peak of the dot-com bubble. While such concentration may be worrisome, as it elicits memories of the “Dot.com crash,” in the short term, this handful of companies’ performance determines the entire market’s direction.”

This passive concentration also fuels the “buy every dip” retail trading mentality. As retail investors see the market rise, the urge to “get rich quickly” initially sucks money into passive index ETFs. Those inflows push markets higher, particularly the mega-cap leaders, which provides the illusion that the trend is unbreakable. Retail traders, emboldened by these moves, began to increase their risk profile to enhance returns by piling into options and short-term trades. The feedback loop between passive buying and retail speculation accelerates price moves and disconnects valuations from economic reality.

“While the short-term effect is a resilient-looking market, the feedback loop increases market fragility as volatility declines.”

“Buy Every Dip” Has A Long History

This buy-the-dip mentality isn’t new. We’ve seen it before. In 1999, retail investors poured into tech stocks every time they fell 5% or more. It worked, until it didn’t. When the dot-com bubble finally burst, those who chased dips were left holding massive losses. We saw it again in 2008. Warren Buffett famously told investors to “Buy America.” He was right, eventually. However, those who bought too early were down 30% or more before the market bottomed in March 2009. Buying dips only works when the market is structurally sound. When it isn’t, those dips can quickly turn into cliffs.

Retail investors tend to forget this. They view every correction as a short-term opportunity and ignore valuation and macro risks to chase momentum. We see this in the valuation differentials between small versus large cap, value versus growth, and international versus domestic.

As you will notice, the valuation gap began to open up following the “Financial Crisis,“ when every market downturn, or potential crisis, was met with zero interest rates and increases in monetary interventions.

Those repeated interventions created “moral hazard” for retail investors.

What exactly is the definition of “moral hazard.” 

Noun – ECONOMICS

The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g., by insurance.

The chart above explains why retail investors currently “buy every dip” in the most risky assets and on leverage.

Why? Because there is no incentive to guard against risk, investors believe the Fed is protecting them from its consequences.

In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses. They assume the Federal Reserve will always step in and on passive flows to catch them if they fall. But the problem is that passive investing only works when money flows in. If that reverses, the safety net vanishes.

We saw this in 2020. When the COVID crash hit, ETFs traded at steep discounts to their NAVs. The price discovery mechanism broke. It only recovered because the Fed stepped in with massive liquidity. Those interventions saved the passive structure. However, passive indexing also weakens market efficiency. A paper from Research Affiliates shows that as passive funds grow, correlations between unrelated stocks rise.

Price discovery weakens, and liquidity dries up during stress. This means the market becomes more fragile, not less. That fragility is masked during bull markets, but it becomes clear when liquidity fades.

The irony is that retail investors now dominate flows. That gives them power. They’re not wrong that “buying every dip” has worked. But the reason it’s worked is because of conditions that won’t necessarily last. Passive flows won’t always rise. The Fed won’t always support markets. Markets will not always ignore valuations.

But what happens next time if the Fed can’t, or won’t, intervene?

Navigating Whatever Happens Next

So what could change this dynamic? Several things. First, a liquidity event could force passive funds to sell, which would flip the script fast. Second, a macro shock, credit-related, geopolitical, or economic event could dry up inflows. Third, earnings disappointments or guidance cuts could undermine confidence in megacap stocks that drive index performance. Fourth, a sharp rate spike or inflation surprise could reduce margin use and force deleveraging.

So far, none of those things has happened. Still, historically, when multiple valuation measures are all pushing more extreme levels, along with sharp increases in leverage, the catalyst size needed for a mean-reverting event becomes much less.

“Valuation is the capstone of proximate causes for a market top, and the one most indicative of the potential magnitude of any subsequent selloff. It’s well known that valuations are high for the US market, but I thought I’d update my aggregate indicator, which combines the main measures of long-term stock-market worth. It previously peaked in April, but has just made a new all-time high this month. Not a welcome sign if you’re a long-term bull.” – Simon White, Bloomberg

If any of these happen, it will expose retail investors. And that’s the risk. While “buying every dip” is easy today, the assumption is that the current structure remains intact. But if the structure breaks, you are the first to get hurt.

So, what should investors do now? Stay involved, but hedge. Maintain exposure, but reduce risk. Here are a few strategies that work:

  1. Keep cash reserves. Cash isn’t trash when volatility rises. It gives you options.

  2. Focus on high-quality names. Companies with strong balance sheets, positive cash flow, and stable dividends are better.

  3. Use tactical hedges. Inverse ETFs or puts can offset downside risk.

  4. Avoid high leverage. If you’re using margin to chase performance, stop.

  5. Diversify your approach. Mix passive exposure with active management, value strategies, or alternatives.

  6. Be willing to sell. If valuations are stretched, take profits. Cash is a position.

Markets work in cycles. What works during one phase often fails in the next. “Buying every dip” has worked for 15 years, but that was in a world of zero rates, Fed support, and steady passive flows.

If that world changes for any reason and you’re not prepared for it, you’ll be part of the next drawdown, not the recovery.

Trade accordingly.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:40

'Buy Every Dip' Remains The Winning Strategy... For Now

'Buy Every Dip' Remains The Winning Strategy... For Now

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

“Buy Every Dip” has lately been the “Siren’s Song” for this market. Such is seen in the flows into ETFs over the course of this year. Retail investors treat pullbacks as temporary noise, and their behavior borders on mechanical. Every sell-off is seen as an opportunity, not a warning. Meanwhile, institutional managers sit it out. They raise cash, hedge risk, and wait for confirmation.

The difference between these two groups has never been more obvious. Retail enthusiasm is driven by momentum and reinforced by platforms like Reddit and TikTok. But it’s more than emotion. There’s structure behind it. Passive indexing distorts the market. The rise of ETFs, driven by automatic inflows, has created a built-in safety net. Prices fall, flows continue. That cushions the blow and speeds up recovery. Retail investors see this and assume every dip will bounce.

However, it’s a dangerous assumption.

While passive flows now dominate the tape, investors are not making decisions. Michael Green noted that “the market has become a giant mindless robot” in describing the enormous, passive capital flows that automatically push stock prices higher. This metaphor refers to the mechanical, non-discretionary purchasing by index funds and other passive investment vehicles that dominate today’s market. The problem is that these flows are “valuation insensitive.” We made such a point in Jesse Livermore’s Approach to Speculation.” To wit:

“Passive funds track indexes weighted by market capitalization. As stock prices rise, these funds buy more of the same names, regardless of valuation or fundamentals. This mechanical process has inflated the market value of the largest companies. The top 10 stocks in the S&P 500 now account for more than 38% of the index. That level of passive index concentration has not been seen since the peak of the dot-com bubble. While such concentration may be worrisome, as it elicits memories of the “Dot.com crash,” in the short term, this handful of companies’ performance determines the entire market’s direction.”

This passive concentration also fuels the “buy every dip” retail trading mentality. As retail investors see the market rise, the urge to “get rich quickly” initially sucks money into passive index ETFs. Those inflows push markets higher, particularly the mega-cap leaders, which provides the illusion that the trend is unbreakable. Retail traders, emboldened by these moves, began to increase their risk profile to enhance returns by piling into options and short-term trades. The feedback loop between passive buying and retail speculation accelerates price moves and disconnects valuations from economic reality.

“While the short-term effect is a resilient-looking market, the feedback loop increases market fragility as volatility declines.”

“Buy Every Dip” Has A Long History

This buy-the-dip mentality isn’t new. We’ve seen it before. In 1999, retail investors poured into tech stocks every time they fell 5% or more. It worked, until it didn’t. When the dot-com bubble finally burst, those who chased dips were left holding massive losses. We saw it again in 2008. Warren Buffett famously told investors to “Buy America.” He was right, eventually. However, those who bought too early were down 30% or more before the market bottomed in March 2009. Buying dips only works when the market is structurally sound. When it isn’t, those dips can quickly turn into cliffs.

Retail investors tend to forget this. They view every correction as a short-term opportunity and ignore valuation and macro risks to chase momentum. We see this in the valuation differentials between small versus large cap, value versus growth, and international versus domestic.

As you will notice, the valuation gap began to open up following the “Financial Crisis,“ when every market downturn, or potential crisis, was met with zero interest rates and increases in monetary interventions.

Those repeated interventions created “moral hazard” for retail investors.

What exactly is the definition of “moral hazard.” 

Noun – ECONOMICS

The lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences, e.g., by insurance.

The chart above explains why retail investors currently “buy every dip” in the most risky assets and on leverage.

Why? Because there is no incentive to guard against risk, investors believe the Fed is protecting them from its consequences.

In other words, the Fed has “insured them” against potential losses. They assume the Federal Reserve will always step in and on passive flows to catch them if they fall. But the problem is that passive investing only works when money flows in. If that reverses, the safety net vanishes.

We saw this in 2020. When the COVID crash hit, ETFs traded at steep discounts to their NAVs. The price discovery mechanism broke. It only recovered because the Fed stepped in with massive liquidity. Those interventions saved the passive structure. However, passive indexing also weakens market efficiency. A paper from Research Affiliates shows that as passive funds grow, correlations between unrelated stocks rise.

Price discovery weakens, and liquidity dries up during stress. This means the market becomes more fragile, not less. That fragility is masked during bull markets, but it becomes clear when liquidity fades.

The irony is that retail investors now dominate flows. That gives them power. They’re not wrong that “buying every dip” has worked. But the reason it’s worked is because of conditions that won’t necessarily last. Passive flows won’t always rise. The Fed won’t always support markets. Markets will not always ignore valuations.

But what happens next time if the Fed can’t, or won’t, intervene?

Navigating Whatever Happens Next

So what could change this dynamic? Several things. First, a liquidity event could force passive funds to sell, which would flip the script fast. Second, a macro shock, credit-related, geopolitical, or economic event could dry up inflows. Third, earnings disappointments or guidance cuts could undermine confidence in megacap stocks that drive index performance. Fourth, a sharp rate spike or inflation surprise could reduce margin use and force deleveraging.

So far, none of those things has happened. Still, historically, when multiple valuation measures are all pushing more extreme levels, along with sharp increases in leverage, the catalyst size needed for a mean-reverting event becomes much less.

“Valuation is the capstone of proximate causes for a market top, and the one most indicative of the potential magnitude of any subsequent selloff. It’s well known that valuations are high for the US market, but I thought I’d update my aggregate indicator, which combines the main measures of long-term stock-market worth. It previously peaked in April, but has just made a new all-time high this month. Not a welcome sign if you’re a long-term bull.” – Simon White, Bloomberg

If any of these happen, it will expose retail investors. And that’s the risk. While “buying every dip” is easy today, the assumption is that the current structure remains intact. But if the structure breaks, you are the first to get hurt.

So, what should investors do now? Stay involved, but hedge. Maintain exposure, but reduce risk. Here are a few strategies that work:

  1. Keep cash reserves. Cash isn’t trash when volatility rises. It gives you options.

  2. Focus on high-quality names. Companies with strong balance sheets, positive cash flow, and stable dividends are better.

  3. Use tactical hedges. Inverse ETFs or puts can offset downside risk.

  4. Avoid high leverage. If you’re using margin to chase performance, stop.

  5. Diversify your approach. Mix passive exposure with active management, value strategies, or alternatives.

  6. Be willing to sell. If valuations are stretched, take profits. Cash is a position.

Markets work in cycles. What works during one phase often fails in the next. “Buying every dip” has worked for 15 years, but that was in a world of zero rates, Fed support, and steady passive flows.

If that world changes for any reason and you’re not prepared for it, you’ll be part of the next drawdown, not the recovery.

Trade accordingly.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:40

Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots 

Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots 

Elon Musk's X and xAI have filed a federal lawsuit in Fort Worth, Texas, accusing Apple and OpenAI of "locking up markets" to preserve their monopolies and shut out rivals. This comes as Musk's long-running feud with OpenAI chief Sam Altman intensifies.

The lawsuit centers on Apple's recent deal to make OpenAI's ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot on the iPhone's operating system, effectively shutting out xAI's Grok and other rivals, such as Google's Gemini and Anthropic. 

The lawsuit's introduction argues that Apple and OpenAI have teamed up to protect their monopolies in smartphones and AI chatbots:

This is a tale of two monopolists joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence ("AI"). Working in tandem, Defendants Apple and OpenAI have locked up markets to maintain their monopolies and prevent innovators like X and xAI from competing.1 Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages.

AI is fundamentally reshaping our world. Technology powered by AI has not only become embedded in our daily lives but is also transforming critical sectors like healthcare, education, and finance. The consensus among global business leaders, academics, and scientists is that AI adoption is both unavoidable and transformational—and businesses that do not plan for it risk falling behind.

As Apple now recognizes, AI poses an existential threat to its business. For example, AI is rapidly advancing the rise of "super apps"—i.e., multi-functional platforms that offer many of the services of smartphones, such as social connectivity and messaging, financial services, e-commerce, and entertainment—that do not require a customer to be tied to a particular device. In other words, super apps, like those being developed by X and xAI, stand ready to upend the smartphone market and Apple's entrenched monopoly in it.

The writing is on the wall. Apple's Senior Vice President for Services, Eddy Cue, has expressed worries that AI might destroy Apple's smartphone business, just as Apple's iPhone did to Nokia's handsets.

Apple knows it cannot escape the inevitable—at least not alone. In a desperate bid to protect its smartphone monopoly, Apple has joined forces with the company that most benefits from inhibiting competition and innovation in AI: OpenAI, a monopolist in the market for generative AI chatbots.

OpenAI quickly rose to dominance in the generative AI chatbot market after introducing its flagship service, ChatGPT, in 2022. Today, OpenAI controls at least 80 percent of the market. Because of OpenAI's monopoly, other generative AI chatbots have struggled to gain share. xAI's Grok has yet to gain more than a few percent of the market despite accolades about its superior features. 

Just like Apple, OpenAI has incentive to protect its monopoly by thwarting competition and innovation in the generative AI chatbot market. And just like Apple, it has done so in violation of the antitrust laws.

In June 2024, Apple and OpenAI announced that Apple would integrate OpenAI's ChatGPT into Apple's iPhone operating system ("iOS"). Apple and OpenAI's exclusive arrangement has made ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot integrated into the iPhone. This means that if iPhone users want to use a generative AI chatbot for key tasks on their devices, they have no choice but to use ChatGPT, even if they would prefer to use more innovative and imaginative products like xAI's Grok. An OpenAI strategy document recognized the importance of competition in this emerging and transformational space: "Real choice drives competition and benefits everyone. Users should be able to pick their AI assistant." Yet Apple and OpenAI have colluded to prevent exactly that.

X and xAI argue:

If not for its exclusive deal with OpenAI, Apple would have no reason to refrain from more prominently featuring the X app and the Grok app in its App Store. 

Just a few weeks ago, Musk threatened Apple with legal action over alleged antitrust violations regarding the App Store rankings of the Grok AI chatbot. He wrote in an X post that Apple's behavior "makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store."

Musk is seeking an injunction to block Apple and OpenAI's exclusive chatbot deal and billions in damages. If successful, the case could reshape how AI bots are distributed on smartphones. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:20

Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots 

Musk Takes On Apple, OpenAI In Antitrust Showdown Over Chatbots 

Elon Musk's X and xAI have filed a federal lawsuit in Fort Worth, Texas, accusing Apple and OpenAI of "locking up markets" to preserve their monopolies and shut out rivals. This comes as Musk's long-running feud with OpenAI chief Sam Altman intensifies.

The lawsuit centers on Apple's recent deal to make OpenAI's ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot on the iPhone's operating system, effectively shutting out xAI's Grok and other rivals, such as Google's Gemini and Anthropic. 

The lawsuit's introduction argues that Apple and OpenAI have teamed up to protect their monopolies in smartphones and AI chatbots:

This is a tale of two monopolists joining forces to ensure their continued dominance in a world rapidly driven by the most powerful technology humanity has ever created: artificial intelligence ("AI"). Working in tandem, Defendants Apple and OpenAI have locked up markets to maintain their monopolies and prevent innovators like X and xAI from competing.1 Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages.

AI is fundamentally reshaping our world. Technology powered by AI has not only become embedded in our daily lives but is also transforming critical sectors like healthcare, education, and finance. The consensus among global business leaders, academics, and scientists is that AI adoption is both unavoidable and transformational—and businesses that do not plan for it risk falling behind.

As Apple now recognizes, AI poses an existential threat to its business. For example, AI is rapidly advancing the rise of "super apps"—i.e., multi-functional platforms that offer many of the services of smartphones, such as social connectivity and messaging, financial services, e-commerce, and entertainment—that do not require a customer to be tied to a particular device. In other words, super apps, like those being developed by X and xAI, stand ready to upend the smartphone market and Apple's entrenched monopoly in it.

The writing is on the wall. Apple's Senior Vice President for Services, Eddy Cue, has expressed worries that AI might destroy Apple's smartphone business, just as Apple's iPhone did to Nokia's handsets.

Apple knows it cannot escape the inevitable—at least not alone. In a desperate bid to protect its smartphone monopoly, Apple has joined forces with the company that most benefits from inhibiting competition and innovation in AI: OpenAI, a monopolist in the market for generative AI chatbots.

OpenAI quickly rose to dominance in the generative AI chatbot market after introducing its flagship service, ChatGPT, in 2022. Today, OpenAI controls at least 80 percent of the market. Because of OpenAI's monopoly, other generative AI chatbots have struggled to gain share. xAI's Grok has yet to gain more than a few percent of the market despite accolades about its superior features. 

Just like Apple, OpenAI has incentive to protect its monopoly by thwarting competition and innovation in the generative AI chatbot market. And just like Apple, it has done so in violation of the antitrust laws.

In June 2024, Apple and OpenAI announced that Apple would integrate OpenAI's ChatGPT into Apple's iPhone operating system ("iOS"). Apple and OpenAI's exclusive arrangement has made ChatGPT the only generative AI chatbot integrated into the iPhone. This means that if iPhone users want to use a generative AI chatbot for key tasks on their devices, they have no choice but to use ChatGPT, even if they would prefer to use more innovative and imaginative products like xAI's Grok. An OpenAI strategy document recognized the importance of competition in this emerging and transformational space: "Real choice drives competition and benefits everyone. Users should be able to pick their AI assistant." Yet Apple and OpenAI have colluded to prevent exactly that.

X and xAI argue:

If not for its exclusive deal with OpenAI, Apple would have no reason to refrain from more prominently featuring the X app and the Grok app in its App Store. 

Just a few weeks ago, Musk threatened Apple with legal action over alleged antitrust violations regarding the App Store rankings of the Grok AI chatbot. He wrote in an X post that Apple's behavior "makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store."

Musk is seeking an injunction to block Apple and OpenAI's exclusive chatbot deal and billions in damages. If successful, the case could reshape how AI bots are distributed on smartphones. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:20

Former Secret Service Chief Paid Himself A Bonus

Former Secret Service Chief Paid Himself A Bonus

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearInvestigations,

Former acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe gave himself a senior leadership "performance" bonus around the holidays in December after previously serving as the second in command of the agency, leading up to the two assassination attempts against President Trump last year, according to multiple knowledgeable sources.

The agency pays nearly everyone in senior executive leadership positions bonuses – many worth thousands of dollars – at the end of the year, and that includes Rowe, the sources said.

Because Rowe was the acting director at the time, he moved forward with giving himself a bonus and then continued to remain on the payroll listed as a "senior advisor" for nearly half of this year – months after Trump tapped Sean Curran as the new director. Rowe could do so by using up all accumulated sick and leave time, sources tell RCP. Rowe has since announced that he had joined the Chertoff Group, the national security consulting firm run by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, who resigned in disgrace after Trump was nearly killed at the Butler rally and rallygoer Corey Comperatore was murdered, did not receive a bonus last year because she was no longer employed by the agency at the end of the year, these sources confirmed.

Meanwhile, the first quarterly installment of promised retention bonuses for agents who agreed not to jump ship to another government law enforcement job or retire in the aftermath of the morale-sinking assassination attempts has been delayed for weeks. On Wednesday, USSS leaders once again reassured agents in an email that their promised retention bonuses are coming and would be paid by the end of August.

The information is helping ease some anxiety for agents miffed by multiple retention check delays – an important morale booster as the Secret Service prepares for President Trump's ride-along tonight with D.C. law enforcement and National Guard troops. Trump wants to see for himself their efforts to crack down on crime in the nation's capital, but such a hands-on D.C. night tour will pose a complex challenge for the Secret Service, which is charged with the unusual task of protecting a president while accompanying law enforcement officers on patrol.

USSS leadership sent an email to all agents Wednesday after RealClearPolitics once again inquired about the ongoing delays with the first quarterly installment of their retention bonuses. When the funds are fully disbursed over the next year, the retention incentives will amount to tens of thousands of dollars per employee who agreed to stay on the job and not to leave the agency. 

The new email updated the agents to let them know that all Uniformed Division officers who deserved the retention bonuses had received them, while the agency was paying other agents in alphabetical order – and had disbursed the funds to agents with last names starting with the letter "A" through "F" so far, a source familiar with the matter told RCP.

 Once again, Curran promised that the agency would complete all the retention-bonus payments by the end of the month.

The nearly month-long delay in receiving the retention bonus was caused by a data-processing glitch, sources said, and exacerbated by DOGE personnel cuts and buyouts to the department in charge of doling out the bonuses.

For many in the Service, the first installment of the bonus will amount to 15% of their annual salaries and tens of thousands of dollars once fully received. These agents agreed to sign the bonus offer earlier this year as a way to stem the tide of agents retiring or departing to other agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Homeland Security Department.

Congress provided an extra $231 million to the Secret Service after the assassination attempts last year to help the agency deal with budget shortfalls and severe manpower issues.

The delays in receiving the retention bonuses, coupled with ongoing heavy workloads (European leaders were in town earlier this week, and the agency is preparing for the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York next month), have spurred additional resentment among some rank-and-file, captured by a series of memes circulating among agents and UD officers.

After senior leaders received their bonuses last year, some believe there's been a lack of urgency to deliver the rank-and-file agents their retention bonuses.

"If bosses pay or schedules are affected, things start changing -- and that's about the only way things change," one insider remarked.

RealClearPolitics first inquired about the missing bonuses on Aug. 5. At the time, an agency spokesman stressed that recruitment and retention are top priorities for Curran and that bonuses would begin to be paid out starting Aug. 11.

“We understand the impact this delay had on our employees and are committed to ensuring it is resolved as quickly as possible,” a spokesman said at the time.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:00

Former Secret Service Chief Paid Himself A Bonus

Former Secret Service Chief Paid Himself A Bonus

Authored by Susan Crabtree via RealClearInvestigations,

Former acting Secret Service Director Ron Rowe gave himself a senior leadership "performance" bonus around the holidays in December after previously serving as the second in command of the agency, leading up to the two assassination attempts against President Trump last year, according to multiple knowledgeable sources.

The agency pays nearly everyone in senior executive leadership positions bonuses – many worth thousands of dollars – at the end of the year, and that includes Rowe, the sources said.

Because Rowe was the acting director at the time, he moved forward with giving himself a bonus and then continued to remain on the payroll listed as a "senior advisor" for nearly half of this year – months after Trump tapped Sean Curran as the new director. Rowe could do so by using up all accumulated sick and leave time, sources tell RCP. Rowe has since announced that he had joined the Chertoff Group, the national security consulting firm run by former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Former Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, who resigned in disgrace after Trump was nearly killed at the Butler rally and rallygoer Corey Comperatore was murdered, did not receive a bonus last year because she was no longer employed by the agency at the end of the year, these sources confirmed.

Meanwhile, the first quarterly installment of promised retention bonuses for agents who agreed not to jump ship to another government law enforcement job or retire in the aftermath of the morale-sinking assassination attempts has been delayed for weeks. On Wednesday, USSS leaders once again reassured agents in an email that their promised retention bonuses are coming and would be paid by the end of August.

The information is helping ease some anxiety for agents miffed by multiple retention check delays – an important morale booster as the Secret Service prepares for President Trump's ride-along tonight with D.C. law enforcement and National Guard troops. Trump wants to see for himself their efforts to crack down on crime in the nation's capital, but such a hands-on D.C. night tour will pose a complex challenge for the Secret Service, which is charged with the unusual task of protecting a president while accompanying law enforcement officers on patrol.

USSS leadership sent an email to all agents Wednesday after RealClearPolitics once again inquired about the ongoing delays with the first quarterly installment of their retention bonuses. When the funds are fully disbursed over the next year, the retention incentives will amount to tens of thousands of dollars per employee who agreed to stay on the job and not to leave the agency. 

The new email updated the agents to let them know that all Uniformed Division officers who deserved the retention bonuses had received them, while the agency was paying other agents in alphabetical order – and had disbursed the funds to agents with last names starting with the letter "A" through "F" so far, a source familiar with the matter told RCP.

 Once again, Curran promised that the agency would complete all the retention-bonus payments by the end of the month.

The nearly month-long delay in receiving the retention bonus was caused by a data-processing glitch, sources said, and exacerbated by DOGE personnel cuts and buyouts to the department in charge of doling out the bonuses.

For many in the Service, the first installment of the bonus will amount to 15% of their annual salaries and tens of thousands of dollars once fully received. These agents agreed to sign the bonus offer earlier this year as a way to stem the tide of agents retiring or departing to other agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Agency or the Homeland Security Department.

Congress provided an extra $231 million to the Secret Service after the assassination attempts last year to help the agency deal with budget shortfalls and severe manpower issues.

The delays in receiving the retention bonuses, coupled with ongoing heavy workloads (European leaders were in town earlier this week, and the agency is preparing for the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York next month), have spurred additional resentment among some rank-and-file, captured by a series of memes circulating among agents and UD officers.

After senior leaders received their bonuses last year, some believe there's been a lack of urgency to deliver the rank-and-file agents their retention bonuses.

"If bosses pay or schedules are affected, things start changing -- and that's about the only way things change," one insider remarked.

RealClearPolitics first inquired about the missing bonuses on Aug. 5. At the time, an agency spokesman stressed that recruitment and retention are top priorities for Curran and that bonuses would begin to be paid out starting Aug. 11.

“We understand the impact this delay had on our employees and are committed to ensuring it is resolved as quickly as possible,” a spokesman said at the time.

Susan Crabtree is RealClearPolitics' national political correspondent.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 13:00

MAGA Jay And Silent Blob

MAGA Jay And Silent Blob

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

Jerome Powell used his set-piece speech at Jackson Hole on Friday to execute a dovish pivot. The S&P500 closed within 2pts of an all-time high and 10-year Treasury yields fell 7bps after the Fed Chair said that recent weakening in the labor market that was highlighted by sluggish employment growth in the most recent non-farm payrolls report – including big downward revisions to jobs growth in April and May – meant that the balance of risks had shifted and that some reduction in the restrictiveness of monetary policy may now be appropriate.

That admission must have stuck in the craw for a Fed Chairman who has pushed back against the White House’s at times puerile lobbying for cheaper money. The risk now is that ‘Too Slow’ Jerome Powell – as he has been dubbed by Trump – is suddenly transformed into ‘MAGA Jay’ in the eyes of the commentariat as he bows to pressure to cut rates and perhaps raises questions in some quarters over whether he might have one eye on safeguarding his own seat on the FOMC.

To add insult to injury, Powell also admitted that the risks to inflation are to the upside while the risks to employment are to the downside. To any economics-trained ear, that sounds like stagflation – a scenario that Powell expressly said he couldn’t envision last year.

The President has been busy subverting his Fed Chair by appointing loyalist and Mar-a-Lago Accord author Stephen Miran to fill Adriana Kugler’s (a Biden appointee) seat on the Board of Governors, and also by threatening to anoint a Fed Chair-in-waiting to second-guess Powell’s every utterance before his contract expires in May next year. Recent attacks on Biden-appointed Lisa Cook over allegations of shonky mortgage applications further highlights how the Fed is now treated similarly to the Supreme Court in terms of the administration seeking to stack it with ideological fellow travellers and dispensing with the fiction of central organs of government being political silent blobs. This trend will doubtless cut both ways as California Governor Newsom’s recent behavior regarding Congressional redistricting in Texas amply illustrates.

The unabashed politicization of the supposedly independent and technocratic process of setting the price of money once again confirms that it is no longer the 1990s and that old ideas about optimal policy transmission, central bank credibility and the need to insulate important decisions from the influence of the popular will offers little protection against the new paradigm of raw power politics. Just as the interpretation of law is inherently political, the price of money is inherently political, and all aspects of national policy are being co-opted to support the MAGA vision of the United States and its place in the world.

The political nature of the price of money is, of course, a feature of other economies, too. Down Under in Australia the RBA has recently cut rates for the third time – sparking another wave of FOMO buying in the country’s already poisonously expensive housing market. Tellingly, UBS’s latest Global Wealth Report places Australia second behind only tax haven microstate Luxembourg in terms of the median household wealth. By far the largest driver of Australia’s household wealth is real estate, accounting for 53% of the total compared to just 30% in the United States. The relative proportions of Australia’s wealth composition vs others certainly raises questions about how much of that household wealth is illusory and liable to disappear when the housing market eventually reverts to fair value (as it always does).

Seemingly content to sacrifice their young to the Moloch of housing market speculation, the Australian government is continuing to do its best to ensure that fair value is never achieved and has this morning announced that they are ‘helping’ by bringing forward a scheme for the government to credit wrap first homebuyers with deposits as small as 5%. To put that another way, the taxpayer will be providing credit guarantees for buyers who are just 5% away from negative equity in a generationally expensive market.

Concurrently, the ABC reports that thousands of houses purpose-built for the disabled on city fringes (where services for people with disabilities are thin on the ground) through the promise of turbocharged returns underwritten by a massive government honeypot for the investors who stumped up the capital are sitting empty – because not enough people with disabilities want to live there. Totally not 2008 vibes at all.

This sort of silliness is common in Australia where there is apparently no problem that a big dose of financialization can’t ‘fix’ by creating new and bigger problems (just look at Australia’s energy market – once a source of competitive advantage, but no longer). Such thinking was again on display through a three day productivity summit last week where the usual neoliberal tropes of “it’s a supply issue” and cutting red tape were again rolled out and there was further inching towards financial repression as all agreed that it should be easier for private pension savings to be redirected into government priority areas. Australia’s government also committed to another round of cuts to “nuisance” tariffs right at the time where the rest of the developed world is realising that – with the benefit of hindsight – such moves in the 1980s might have been a bad idea and the ability to make stuff in your own country is actually a very useful thing sometimes.

Contrast that thinking to what is happening in the USA, where Intel has apparently just agreed to allow the US government to take a 10% stake in the company to ensure that strategically important semiconductor manufacturing occurs inside the United States and is treated as a national security priority. Thinking from first principles, economics is the study of scarcity and it is the job of national governments to arrange the scarce factors of production (land, labor and capital) to best ensure the prosperity and security of their people.

Very clearly we are seeing two very different approaches to this problem of scarcity emerging. Is the wealth of nations best employed to bid up the housing stock, making do-nothing speculators and ticket-clipping middlemen (real estate agents, mortgage brokers, banks etc) in the rentier economy fat? Or is it better employed to ensure supremacy of real production and the dominance of strategic supply chains vis-à-vis potential adversaries?

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/25/2025 - 12:20

Pages