Zero Rss

Governor DeSantis Revokes Permits For Flock Cameras On Florida State Highways

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has ordered the removal of all Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras from state highway right-of-ways, citing privacy, data, and systematic surveillance concerns.

The Daily Caller reports that DeSantis ordered all Flock cameras to be removed from the "state highway system," including interstates such as I-10 and I-75, within 30 days, in a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) memo on Monday.

🚨 JUST IN: Gov. Ron DeSantis' FDOT is hereby TAKING DOWN Flock cameras statewide over privacy concerns in state rights-of-way

All existing permits for automated license plate readers, even installed by local law enforcement, in state highway rights-of-way — are REVOKED

FDOT is… pic.twitter.com/H631aHoJhy

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) August 31, 2026

According to WCTV, the order specifically targets cameras on state-owned roads, including major interstates like I-10 and I-75 but does not automatically ban cameras operating on local city or county roads, nor does it impact devices installed on private or commercial properties.

Local law enforcement agencies will have 30 days to remove the hardware and if they fail to comply, FDOT will remove the cameras independently.

DeSantis remains supportive of law enforcement but acknowledged that growing evidence of camera misuse has raised legitimate concerns about government surveillance.

During a press conference last Wednesday, DeSantis warned against allowing Florida to become a "surveillance state" and said, "I think people are right to be concerned."

The Republican Governor stated:

But, you also have to say, okay, how could this be misused? And how could a private company misuse the data, but also law enforcement? We know there was an officer in Florida who was using the LPR data to track like an ex-girlfriend or something like that.

DeSantis called on the Florida Legislature to cement permanent regulations into law during the next legislative session and advocated for a comprehensive AI Bill of Rights to institute strict criminal penalties for data misuse and protect citizens from emerging digital monitoring methods.

Following the announcement, several sheriff's departments, including those in Putnam, Liberty and Franklin counties, announced they would end their own license plate reader programs.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 20:05

Chinese Student Charged With Lying To Border Agents Over Alleged Airport Photo Assignments From Beijing

Authored by Frank Fang via The Epoch Times,

A Chinese national studying at a Canadian university has been charged with lying to American officials to conceal that he took photographs at a Chicago airport cargo facility at the direction of a suspected Chinese official, according to a federal complaint filed in Detroit on Aug. 26.

The U.S. Department of Justice in Washington on Jan. 6, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Zeng Weiheng, born in 2004, is charged with making false statements in a matter under federal jurisdiction. An undergraduate student at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, Zeng was issued a B1/B2 visitor visa in October 2022 and has entered the United States 24 times since then, according to an affidavit filed with the complaint by an FBI agent.

He was arrested on Aug. 26.

Authorities stopped Zeng for an initial screening on Aug. 23 at the Ambassador Bridge border crossing in Detroit, after linking his vehicle to a security incident at a FedEx cargo facility at Chicago O'Hare International Airport on April 21.

That day, FedEx employees saw an Asian male spending roughly 20 minutes at the facility. Surveillance footage showed the man climbing onto a construction forklift to take photographs and attempting to open a parked delivery truck and shipping trailer before driving off in a minivan bearing an Ontario license plate.

Zeng underwent three interviews with U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials during secondary screening, during which his account of his April trip changed. according to court documents.

In his first interview, Zeng claimed that he had visited tourist sites during his April trip, and the photos of planes in his phone were "pictures of model aircraft being tracked for a flight radar website," authorities said. When pressed in a second interview, Zeng allegedly admitted going to the FedEx facility to take photos of planes and revealed that he had also trespassed at a FedEx facility at Toronto Pierson Airport in 2025.

By the third interview, Zeng revealed that a contact in China had "assigned him specific planes and their tail numbers to photograph" and he was paid $20 to $30 per photograph, the court documents allege.

In his subsequent interview with the FBI, Zeng admitted that the aircraft photography was a cover story devised by his handler, and the "true task was to obtain interior photographs of the FedEx facility," according to the affidavit.

His Chinese contact "was primarily interested in information on transportation and logistics in the United States" and "asked for information of flight freight logistics, bus routes, and trains routes and schedules," the affidavit said.

Zeng also told the FBI that he suspected his Chinese contact was a Chinese regime official working for one of China's security departments, in part because the contact had provided him with "videos of scenes that only security officials would have access to."

For his communication with the Chinese contact, Zeng said he was mailed SIM cards from China's state-run China Telecom, which allowed him to "by-pass Canadian cellular network and connect directly with the Chinese provider network" to send text messages, according to the affidavit.

Zeng was instructed to use the SIM cards only in a Huawei-made phone, swapping in a new card every few months and destroying the old one. He was also told never to bring the phone with him on trips to the United States.

The United States has blacklisted Chinese tech company Huawei over security concerns and banned it from doing business with American suppliers, selling new network or consumer hardware in the country, or providing its equipment to U.S. telecom networks.

Zeng also told the FBI that the Chinese contact wanted him to travel to Orlando, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles "to obtain photographs of specific locations surrounding airports." Zeng said he declined, but completed "two taskings" and received a total of 500 yuan (about $74) for the photographs he took in Toronto Pearson International Airport and O'Hare International Airport.

As for his motivation, Zeng told the FBI that he thought it would be "cool" and wanted "to have the opportunity to work with someone like [agents] at the FBI," according to the affidavit.

The Epoch Times was unable to contact Zeng's lawyer for comment.

In a separate case, a Chinese exchange student was sentenced in 2019 to a year in federal prison after pleading guilty to photographing defense installations at the U.S. Naval Air Station Key West in Florida.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 20:05

Chevron Nears Deal To Expand Venezuela Oil Operations

Venezuela could soon become a much bigger part of Chevron’s global oil business, according to Bloomberg.

The company is reportedly nearing an agreement to take control of operations at two large crude-producing areas in the country’s Carabobo region, adding access to substantial heavy-oil resources.

The potential expansion comes as Washington seeks to attract more American capital to Venezuela’s energy sector and boost the country’s output. Chevron already has an established presence there through a partnership with state oil company PDVSA, making it the only major US producer currently active in Venezuela.

Bloomberg reported that Chevron has also been discussing investment conditions with the government of acting President Delcy Rodríguez. Any new arrangement could improve the economics of committing additional capital to Venezuelan production.

The expected deal is unrelated to separate talks involving possible direct US government participation in Venezuelan oil assets. Chevron has not publicly commented on the negotiations.

The development marks a major shift in the US-Venezuela relationship after years of hostility. Washington imposed sweeping sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry during Nicolás Maduro’s rule, sharply limiting the country’s access to US markets and restricting American companies’ ability to operate there. Chevron remained a notable exception, continuing limited activities under US government authorization.

Relations entered a new phase following Maduro’s capture by US forces. The Trump administration has since sought greater influence over Venezuela’s energy sector, viewing the country’s enormous petroleum reserves as both an economic opportunity and a strategic asset.

For Venezuela, renewed US involvement could bring badly needed investment and technical expertise to an oil industry weakened by years of underinvestment, sanctions and deteriorating infrastructure. For Washington, expanding American participation could help increase Venezuelan production while giving the US greater influence over how the country’s oil resources are developed and sold.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 19:40

The State Is Coming For Your Roomba

Authored by Thiago V. S. Coelho via The Mises Institute,

The federal government has discovered another menace to the republic: the vacuum cleaner.

In July, the Federal Communications Commission added foreign-produced "advanced robotic devices" to its Covered List, generally preventing new models from receiving the authorization needed to be imported, marketed, or sold in the United States. Although early headlines emphasized Chinese humanoid robots and mechanical dogs, Sean Hollister reported in The Verge that the rule also encompasses robotic vacuums, lawnmowers, delivery machines, and many warehouse robots. It potentially applies to almost any wireless, software-controlled ground robot weighing more than 4.4 pounds and capable of perceiving its surroundings.

This is not yet a confiscation campaign. Americans may continue using their existing vacuums, and retailers may sell models that were previously authorized. The prohibition falls principally on future foreign-produced models unless their manufacturers secure conditional approval. Yet the distinction makes the policy more absurd, not less. According to the Federal Communications Commission's own fact sheet, the supposed security danger is serious enough to exclude new household products but not serious enough to affect previously purchased machines - or even purchases and use by federal agencies.

The security concerns are not imaginary. Sean Hollister himself had documented in an earlier The Verge article in February how a vulnerability in DJI Romo robotic vacuums allowed a researcher to obtain information from roughly 7,000 devices, including room maps, location data, and, in some circumstances, camera access and remote control. A machine carrying sensors through every room can plainly become an instrument of surveillance when its manufacturer handles data irresponsibly.

But a real problem does not vindicate every coercive response proposed in its name. The FCC's rule does not primarily distinguish secure robots from insecure ones. It distinguishes foreign production from domestic production. Jennifer Pattison Tuohy observes in "The Ban on Robot Vacuums Won't Make Them Safer, Only Worse" that a vacuum assembled in Massachusetts is not automatically more secure than one assembled in Shenzhen. The government is restricting where machines are made without demonstrating that domestic manufacture guarantees encrypted storage, responsible data retention, local processing, independent auditing, or competent software maintenance.

From a libertarian standpoint, the first question is not whether officials can imagine a danger. They can always imagine one. The question is whether the government may forcibly prevent peaceful adults from purchasing a product because bureaucrats believe that they have evaluated its risks better than the buyer has. A person owns his home, his money, and his network. He may sensibly refuse to place an internet-connected camera on his floor. He may instead purchase one after reading disclosures, disabling cloud functions, installing firewall rules, or deciding that the convenience exceeds the risk. That judgment belongs to the property owner, not to a federal licensing authority.

The Austrian case against the ban begins with consumer choice. In his explanation of the concept of consumer sovereignty, Robert P. Murphy explains that Ludwig von Mises regarded consumer spending as a continuing plebiscite directing entrepreneurs toward the goods people value. In a market, producers retain their position only by persuading customers. The FCC reverses that relationship. Consumers may vote for inexpensive Chinese vacuums, privacy-oriented American machines, offline models, or no robot at all - but only after Washington has removed the candidates it dislikes.

Ludwig von Mises described this mechanism precisely in chapter 39 of Human Action. Restrictive intervention forbids or makes more expensive particular methods of production, transportation, and distribution. It thereby eliminates means that people could have used to satisfy their wants. Government may redirect production, but it cannot conjure the factories, skilled labor, components, logistical networks, and accumulated knowledge that its decree assumes into existence. It can force robotic production away from locations selected through market calculation; it cannot guarantee that the replacement arrangement will be equally productive.

The consequences will appear as higher prices, fewer models, delayed innovations, and machines that remain on the market longer because potential replacements cannot obtain authorization. These losses will be dispersed among millions of households, laboratories, startups, warehouses, and small businesses. The political gains, meanwhile, will be concentrated among domestic manufacturers and contractors seeking insulation from foreign competition.

That pattern is the essence of protectionism. In Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt warned that trade barriers encourage observers to notice the immediate benefit bestowed upon a protected industry while ignoring the long-run costs imposed upon consumers and other producers. A ban is merely a prohibitive tariff: instead of making the foreign product somewhat dearer, it attempts to make the next generation unavailable. The visible result may be a ribbon-cutting ceremony at a subsidized factory. The unseen result will be every purchase forgone and every business plan rendered uneconomic by costlier machinery.

Murray N. Rothbard's analysis is even less forgiving. In his analysis of production restrictions in Power and Market, Rothbard identifies licenses, government-defined quality standards, tariffs, and geographical penalties on competitors as forms of monopolistic privilege. The robotic-device ban combines several of them. Foreign firms are excluded by default, domestic firms must satisfy political tests, and officials become gatekeepers empowered to dispense exceptions. Competition shifts from satisfying customers to securing waivers.

This will not necessarily rebuild American industry. It may instead produce an American robotics sector increasingly skilled at lobbying and progressively less skilled at competing. Entrepreneurs learn from rival products, international suppliers, consumer complaints, falling component prices, and failed experiments. Prohibition severs those feedback mechanisms. Even American startups that use foreign sensors, motors, batteries, docks, or contract manufacturing may find themselves caught by domestic-content requirements. The state is not nurturing an infant industry; it is placing the infant in an isolation chamber.

Americans have seen this paternalistic method before. Jeffrey A. Tucker recounts in "The Relentless Misery of 1.6 Gallons" how federal law limited new toilets to 1.6 gallons per flush, displacing conventional models that commonly used between 3.5 and five gallons. The mandate was advertised as enlightened conservation. Consumers experienced clogs, plungers, repeated flushing, dirtier facilities, and a reduced standard of sanitation. In that case, as now, government outlawed a proven convenience and forced the public to accommodate the resulting deterioration. The situation was famously featured in a King of the Hill episode, where Hank Hill was able to repeal the restriction of high-flow toilets, but in real life, it is still standing.

Today, the prohibited convenience rolls across the floor rather than sitting in the bathroom, but the governing conceit is identical. Officials identify one social objective - water conservation then, national security now - and suppress the multitude of tradeoffs that individuals make in real life. Performance, price, privacy, repairability, accessibility, time savings, and personal circumstances are compressed into a single command.

A free society has better answers to insecure machines. Manufacturers can offer offline operation and local data storage. Independent laboratories can test security. Insurers, retailers, reviewers, and consumer organizations can demand audits and publish ratings. Customers can contract for privacy guarantees. Companies that misrepresent their practices can face fraud claims, liability, reputational ruin, and market abandonment. None of this requires Washington to presume that every foreign vacuum is hostile and every domestic vacuum trustworthy.

The Roomba ban should therefore be repealed before it hardens into another permanent reduction in ordinary life.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 19:15

Trump Mentions Tapping The 'Older Stuff' While Dismissing Reports Of Missile Shortages

The below Trump exchange with reporters in the Oval Office on Monday seems a tacit admission from the Commander-in-Chief that yes, the United States is running out of standoff munitions...

Q: Several military leaders have reportedly told Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation in Iran weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard that?

TRUMP: We're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it... We have unlimited amounts of... older stuff.

Q: Several military leaders have reportedly told Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation in Iran weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard that?

TRUMP: We're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. We… pic.twitter.com/nBbjAXhxmn

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 31, 2026

The suggestion here is that the "older stuff" will of necessity be tapped in order to both support allies abroad and keep the 'homeland' safe from external threats.

The White House has at this point been dealing with similar media inquiries for months. It has batted down such claims as a dwindling Pentagon missile arsenal, due to the simultaneous and costly Iran and Ukraine wars.

For example, Trump himself in an August 6 Truth Social post asserted: "The U.S. has massive amounts of 'munitions,' especially of certain types." He had added at the time: "Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the US as needed."

Perhaps the Iran conflict hitting the six-month mark made the White House realize that if sporadic military tit-for-tat continues on the current track, then missile stores are in serious trouble, and the 'old stuff' must be increasingly relied upon.

While the full exchange involved Trump seeking to reassure that in his view there's no problem with American stockpiles, the reference to 'mid-grade' and 'older stuff' has some analysts worried - and also given the somewhat defensive reference of blaming Ukraine:

REPORTER: And back on Iran, several military leaders have reportedly told Secretary Hegseth that a prolonged, large-scale operation there weakens our ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the homeland. Have you heard those?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, number one, we have nothing else in mind. Number two, we're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. Number three, we have so much ammunition and munitions, as they like to call it, all over the world that we can always take from if we want.

And this is a relatively little war for us. This is not a big war. You know where the money went was Ukraine. The money was really taken out - the ammunition, if you talk about low, we have tremendous amounts, unlimited amounts of mid-grade and older stuff that's also very powerful. Unlimited amounts.

We're only talking about what we call the elite - the elite stuff - and even that, we're in very good shape. But we can always take from other sources. But I don't think we're going to need it because nobody's going to mess with us.

Trump is meanwhile said to be considering a Hegseth-backed CENTCOM plan for periodic strikes on Iranian radar, air-defense and anti-ship missile sites - particularly in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

A little Russian media trolling...

US stockpiles 'DEPLETED' in Europe and Asia due to Iran war — Wall Street Journal

Patriot and ATACMS missiles reportedly at 'CRITICAL' levels pic.twitter.com/m3DAX9TW1h

— RT Intl (@RT_on_X) August 29, 2026

One official told Axios this would be akin to "mowing the grass" from time to time (borrowing Israel's disturbing phrase related to Gaza) - but clearly this is on an indefinite timeline, setting up for potential 'forever war'. And this is where the missile arsenal would likely come up short, according to some estimates.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 18:50

Federal Judge Blocks New York From Enforcing $75 Billion Climate Superfund Law

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge ruled on Monday that New York cannot enforce a 2024 state law that sought to impose an estimated $75 billion in charges on carbon-emitting companies for allegedly causing climate damage between 2000 and 2018.

Chief U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes in Syracuse, New York, sided with 22 Republican state attorneys general, as well as industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in finding the state measure preempted by federal law. The judge said the Clean Air Act, which gave the federal Environmental Protection Agency authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, did not authorize states to adopt emissions compensation schemes.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Climate Change Superfund Act into law in December 2024. It required about three dozen covered fossil-fuel companies to pay a combined $3 billion annually for 25 years, or $75 billion in total. The funds would have been earmarked for infrastructure work, including coastal wetlands, stormwater systems, roads, bridges, and responses to extreme weather.

Sannes said enforcing the law risked upsetting the balance of protecting the environment, "a project that necessarily requires national standards and global participation," and promoting economic growth, energy production, foreign policy interests, and national security.

West Virginia Attorney General John McCuskey led the coalition of states challenging the legislation in a February 2025 lawsuit. The attorneys general said at the time that New York's law was politically motivated "overreach" that punished traditional energy companies, including West Virginia-based coal and natural gas companies, that now comply with applicable laws. They said payouts from coal, oil, and natural gas producers could wipe out thousands of jobs if the producers were forced to shut down.

"We were the first to challenge this law because we saw it for what it was - a money grab by the elites in New York, who want to punish West Virginians for doing the jobs that enable them to heat their homes and build their cities," McCuskey said in an Aug. 31 statement.

Hochul's office is reviewing the decision to determine possible next steps, spokesperson Ken Lovett said.

"Taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for damages caused by polluters," he said.

New York was the second U.S. state to establish a superfund requiring major fossil-fuel companies to help finance infrastructure projects such as flood mitigation and coastal protection.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute sued Vermont on Dec. 30 to block that state's superfund. That case remains pending.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Adam Gustafson from the Justice Department's Energy and Natural Resources Division welcomed Monday's decision.

"New York's law would have expropriated $75 billion from energy companies around the world during an energy emergency and in direct defiance of American foreign policy and federal law," Gustafson said. "We will continue to fight for affordable, reliable energy for all Americans."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 18:25

"State Terrorism": Putin Blasts Zelensky After Wild Threat Of Drone Attacks To 'De Facto Close' Russian Airspace

Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky just issued a crazy and unexpected threat which portends a major escalation in the war. Certainly it will provoke the Kremlin into even more uncontrolled escalation and massive strikes, such as has been (somewhat unusually) happening on Odesa port as well as the capital city of late.

He has vowed moving forward to de facto close Russia's skies, and has put Russian airlines, insurers, and foreign governments on notice. Zelensky is in effect warning that airlines could be shot out of the sky - though he stopped short of voicing this directly.

"Today we want to warn every airline that uses Russian airspace, every insurer, everyone who still uses key Russian airports - Russian skies are becoming completely dangerous,"Zelensky stated.

Via Facebook/Sheremetyevo International Airport

"Although the Russian authorities do not report this as it should, the Russian sky will de facto be closed," he added.

As justification for the alarming announcement and threat, the Ukrainian leader pointed to the last several days of Moscow's heightened aerial assault on Ukraine which has left dozens of casualties. On Tuesday alone at least 12 were killed and another 21 injured in Ukraine's capital due to Russian missile and drone attacks.

"This is purely Russian terror against civilians. Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Russia has tried to block our ports, and due to Russian strikes on Ukraine, our skies are closed to civilian aviation," he added.

Though he emphasized that Russian airspace "will be de facto closed" because of Ukrainian drones, and that foreign governments and insurers must take this into account, Zelensky still sought to highlight that this does not constitute a threat to civilian aviation.

He also tried to present Western calls for restraint as folly, which he apparently will not listen to anymore, saying additionally:

"When the United States contacted us, asking us not to strike Moscow and St. Petersburg, we paused, and then we were attacked. When our partners contact us for negotiations, we are ready to ensure a period of calm in the Russian airspace. However, for the duration of the war, the Russian airspace is currently for Ukrainian drones, not for civilian aviation."

Invoking Russia's two largest cities, which are also major international travel hubs, is sure to get Kremlin leaders' attention. Both have come under increasingly drone attacks in the last several months. Dozens of airports across Russia have many times suffered forced closures, or else severe flight delays, due to the long-running drone war.

Russian President Putin just responded to Zelensky's wild threat, accusing Ukraine's leader of declaring "state terrorism" for warning airlines that Kyiv's drone offensive against Russia made that country's airspace unsafe.

"If this was said out loud, then it is simply a declaration of state terrorism," Putin said in a televised news conference.

"They are asking us to resume negotiations... but you don't negotiate with terrorists."

Interestingly, Zelensky also suggested he had paused such attacks for the sake of CIA Director John Ratcliffe's August 25 'secretive' trip to Moscow.

"Therefore, for the sake of diplomacy, for the sake of negotiations — when our partners turn to us about this — we will ensure that the Russian sky is cleared of drones for certain periods of time and in certain directions," he noted.

BREAKING: Zelensky warns every airline using Russian airspace, every insurer, everyone using key Russian airports:

Russian skies are becoming completely unsafe.

Ukraine says it doesn't threaten civilian aviation, but "drones in Russian skies will be such that this must be… pic.twitter.com/zRrggy4ayV

— Clash Report (@clashreport) September 1, 2026

In the past, President Putin has not shown a willingness to back down in the face of such threats - instead he has often escalated in turn. The war is likely to get a lot worse before it gets better at this stage, with not even a hint of peace talks anywhere on the horizon.

Meanwhile, via Newsquawk late Tuesday, a new Putin warning: "Russian President Putin says Russia has blocked a large enemy force in eastern Ukraine and it keeps striking Ukrainian ports and energy facilities; is preparing massive strikes on Ukraine's energy targets."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 18:00

Netanyahu Boasts Of Years-Long Effort To Convince US To Launch War Against Iran

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has boasted of his efforts to convince the US to launch a war against Iran, crediting his frequent appearances on US television networks and his "intimate knowledge" of US leaders.

Netanyahu made the comments Sunday night on Israel’s Channel 14, and a clip of his appearance was posted on X by the account Clash Report, which Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi later shared.

via Associated Press

The Israeli leader said that he had been against Iran for "nearly 40 years" and that it took him a long time to get the Israeli security establishment and the US on board.

"It took a long time to bring the US in," he said, according to Channel 14. "I was able to do this because I had close to a thousand hours on American television, influence in the United States, and intimate knowledge of all its leaders – both those who support us and those who do not."

The New York Times reported in April that 17 days before the US and Israel launched the war on February 28, Netanyahu presented President Trump with an intelligence briefing at the White House and made a "hard sell" for the war.

The report said that Netanyahu had been "pressing for months" for the US to agree to a major attack on the Islamic Republic.

Netanyahu:

I’ve been dealing with Iran for close to 40 years.

It took me a long time to get our security establishment to deal with Iran itself.

It also took a long time to bring the United States to this understanding. I was able to do that because I had close to a thousand… pic.twitter.com/IT4KkD7j7B

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 30, 2026

Sources told the Times that during the briefing, Netanyahu made a series of predictions about the potential war that proved to be wrong, including the idea that Iran was ripe for regime change, that its ballistic missile program could be destroyed within weeks, that it would be too weak to close the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran’s missile strikes on US interests in regional countries would be minimal.

Responding to Netanyahu’s comments about his influence on the US, Aragchi said that the Israeli leader was openly bragging about how he "suckered" the US into the war.

Greenwald: the US once covertly sold missiles to the Iranians...

It's amazing how quickly they got huge numbers of people to recite the comical view that Iran has been at war with the US for 47 years (and, I guess, every American president forgot to mention this fact, including Trump 1)

In the 1980s, the Reagan WH sold highly sophisticated… https://t.co/PI85t3nOpV

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 31, 2026

"In Hebrew, Netanyahu openly crows that he suckered the US Administration into a war on Iran on behalf of Israel."

"Netanyahu explicitly laughs about how he 'influenced' America through 1,000 hours of airtime on US networks," the Iranian diplomat wrote on X. “In English, he praises POTUS’ leadership. Serpent.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 17:40

'Daddy's Savings Account': Two More NYC-DSA Leaders Caught Living The Capitalist Dream

A pair of New York City's leading Democratic Socialists live in Brooklyn apartments that would be pure fantasy for the working-class Americans they claim to champion, according to the New York Post, the latest installment in a running audit of the personal real estate of the organization that put Zohran Mamdani in Gracie Mansion.

The report lands less than two weeks after the Post revealed that NYC-DSA co-chair Gustavo Gordillo, a Yale-trained sculptor who has billed himself as a "union electrician," lives in a $1.5 million Bed-Stuy townhouse bought and renovated by his parents' LLC, a disclosure that has since earned the property a Department of Buildings stop-work order and a $2,500 fine for permitless renovations. That makes it three for three among the group's top brass.

First is Julie Swoope, who chairs the far-left group's steering committee and in 2021 purchased a one-bedroom co-op outright, just blocks from Prospect Park, for $510,000. The listing touted skyline views and "great closet space."

Julie Swoope owns a $500,000 apartment in Brooklyn. canarymission.org

Swoope's family background does little to reinforce a working-class narrative. Her mother, artist Gail Cunningham Swoope, spent three years traveling aboard a live-aboard sailboat and belonged to the New Smyrna Beach Boat and Ski Club, according to an obituary reviewed by the Post.

Next up is Olivia Gonzalez Killingsworth, the group's labor coordinator, elected in 2025, who runs her own bookkeeping business and is also an actor and singer, according to her website. Killingsworth sold an Upper West Side triplex in a brownstone building on September 12, 2022, for $2.4 million. The two-bedroom, three-bathroom unit sits a block from Central Park.

DSA labor coordinator Olivia Killingsworth sold a $2.4 million triplex in 2022. bluesky / olivekilworth

Killingsworth did not buy that property on the open market. Akin to many champagne socialists, she inherited the unit from her aunt Elizabeth, who died in 2018, and sold it alongside relatives.

Just two days later, on September 14, 2022, Killingsworth closed on a one-bedroom apartment in Brooklyn for $521,000, completing a sequence in which an inherited brownstone near Central Park was liquidated for millions and replaced, almost immediately, with another New York apartment.

For context, the DSA's own platform holds that housing policy should involve "a redistribution of land from the landowners to the landless," with property expropriated from capitalists and delivered to the working class.

"Once again we're finding out why DSA actually stands for Daddy's Savings Account. Selling a multimillion-dollar Manhattan Triplex to go play pretend bohemian with your rich comrades in Brooklyn is a luxury working-class New Yorkers will never have," New York City Councilwoman Vickie Paladino (R-Queens) said in a statement to the Post.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 17:20

Top US General Says No Plans To Deploy Troops To Polling Sites In November

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. military has no plans to send troops or other personnel to polling places during November's midterm elections, the top U.S. general has said.

Gen. Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was responding to Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who had asked him and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth in an Aug. 18 letter to confirm they won't send troops to polls.

Caine wrote in response that state and local officials retain responsibility for overseeing election administration and security.

"The Joint Force has no plans to send Federal military personnel or Federalized members of the National Guard to polling places during the 2026 elections," Caine wrote.

"Likewise, the Joint Force has no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election-related material."

Caine also said that he had not received, nor did he expect to receive, "any unlawful order" concerning the role of the Joint Force in the November midterm elections.

In 2020, Gen. Mark Milley, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded to a similar letter from Slotkin, then a congresswoman.

"I believe deeply in the principle of an apolitical U.S. military," Milley wrote. "In the event of a dispute over some aspect of the elections, by law U.S. courts and the U.S. Congress are required to resolve any disputes, not the U.S. military."

The United States is set to hold midterm elections in November, which will decide which party controls Congress for the next two years, with all 435 House seats and one-third of Senate seats up for election.

Earlier this year, then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Donald Trump had not discussed any "formal plans" to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents at polling places during the midterm elections, but declined to rule out the presence of federal agents near voting sites.

Federal law prohibits the government from deploying troops at locations holding general or special elections "unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States," according to 18 U.S. Code § 592, and bars any sort of interference in elections by armed forces. ICE agents are civilian law-enforcement officers and are not covered by the same prohibitions that apply to the armed forces, although other laws still limit intimidation or interference at polling places.

"I can't guarantee that an ICE agent won't be around a polling location in November," Leavitt told reporters on Feb. 5. "But what I can tell you is I haven't heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations. It's a disingenuous question."

Leavitt stepped down from her role in late August, citing the need to focus on her family following the birth of her second child.

Slotkin introduced legislation on June 18 to prevent the deployment of military forces and federal agents at polling places during the midterm elections.

The bill would require the president to provide Congress with "intel, legal justification, and evidence" showing that state or local authorities are not capable of handling a threat on their own at least 48 hours before sending federal forces to polling sites, according to a statement from Slotkin's office.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 17:00

Trump Admin Urges SCOTUS To Step In On Military Trans Ban

The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to uphold its ban on transgender troops serving in the military, appealing a lower court ruling that has, for now, blocked enforcement against service members already in uniform.

Vin Testa waves a LGBTQ pride flag in front of the Supreme Court building on June 26, 2023 in Washington, DC.
Getty Images

The petition targets a June decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals finding the ban probably violates the constitutional rights of transgender troops already serving. The decision claimed that the ban "appears to be driven by the bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group: persons who identify as transgender." That ruling barred the Pentagon from enforcing the policy against those specific plaintiffs while their case works through the courts. The administration maintains the policy regulates a medical condition - gender dysphoria - rather than transgender status, and therefore needs only a rational connection to military readiness to survive review.

The June ruling was 2-1 and split the baby: it blocked the Pentagon from discharging the currently serving plaintiffs while leaving the ban on new transgender recruits fully in place. Judges Robert Wilkins (an Obama appointee) and Judith Rogers (a Clinton appointee) formed the majority. Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee and the panel's lone Republican nominee, dissented: "because the plaintiffs are service members not civilians, and because we are judges not generals, I respectfully dissent." The Constitution, Walker wrote, assigns that authority to Congress and the Commander in Chief. Notably, a different D.C. Circuit motions panel had ruled the opposite way in December – letting the Pentagon enforce the ban, 2-1 – meaning the same courthouse has now gone both directions depending on which three judges drew the case. Hegseth's response to the June loss was four words: "See you at SCOTUS."

The administration wants the justices to take the case now, before trial – its petition calls the June ruling "gravely erroneous" – rather than let a preliminary injunction, in place in some form since March 2025, run all the way to a two-week trial set for January. That posture has become familiar this year, with the Department of War repeatedly asking the high court to let its personnel decisions stand while litigation over their legality plays out.

The Justice Department's Supreme Court filing describes the Pentagon's authority to decide who serves as a "matter of exceptional importance," language that puts military judgment, not the lower courts' read of the evidence, at the center of the case.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, claimed the administration "wants the Supreme Court to rush in and bless the expulsion of proven, decorated soldiers before a single court has issued a final judgment."

The policy traces back to an executive order Trump signed shortly after taking office. It states that "adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

"We will get transgender ideology the hell out of our military. It's going to be gone," Trump told House Republicans the day he signed the executive order during a retreat at his Doral golf resort in Miami.

Pete Hegseth turned that order into policy in February 2025.

Hegseth's memo reasoned that troops who experience symptoms of gender dysphoria "cannot satisfy the rigorous standards necessary for Military Service." He has since folded the ban into a broader push to strip "woke" policy out of the armed forces.

The population at issue is small but not trivial: the Pentagon's own estimate put roughly 4,240 troops with a gender dysphoria diagnosis among a force of about two million, and around 1,000 self-identified for voluntary separation when Hegseth's 2025 deadline hit.

NCLR and GLAD Law filed the underlying case, Talbott v. United States, in January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the Department of War's transgender policy violates the Constitution and discriminates against transgender troops.

The court has scheduled a trial for January 2027, but the Department of War wants the ban enforced against the plaintiffs before then. The justices already weighed in on this policy once before. They allowed the ban to take effect last year in a separate challenge, while that earlier litigation proceeded, a result that suggests a majority already leans toward giving the Pentagon the ability to set its own military readiness standards.

The ruling under appeal covers narrower ground – for now. It protects only the troops who brought this specific suit. But on June 30, District Judge Ana Reyes – whose original injunction called the ban "soaked with animus and dripping with pretext" – certified the case as a class action covering every transgender person serving or seeking to enlist since January 2025, a maneuver designed to route around the Supreme Court's ruling last year curtailing nationwide injunctions. Two months later, the administration was at the high court's door. If the plaintiffs win at the January trial, the remedy no longer stops at 29 names.

"Joe Biden allowed trans insanity to run rampant in our military," White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales said in a statement. "President Trump restored lethality and readiness to our warfighters." She added, "The United States military is the greatest in the world, and President Trump is keeping it that way by focusing on elite readiness standards – not DEI or woke gender ideology."

Whether the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case will determine how long the lower courts' preliminary read of the Constitution can override the Pentagon's own judgment about who meets its strict standards of military readiness.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 16:40

How Capitalism Reduces Poverty And Creates Wealth

Authored by James T. Moodey via American Thinker,

The word capitalism was coined in the 1700s. The definition was vague. It generally meant "private property traded freely" or "free markets." However, most non-totalitarian countries had free markets, and these countries in Europe and elsewhere were not particularly wealthy. Their rural people were paupers living off the land, even in England, France, and the U.S. at our founding.

We generally regard capitalism as creating wealth, but free markets are not what created the enormous wealth that occurred in the United States. I knew that and studied our economic history to find out: If it was not free markets, what was it? What specifically were the mechanics of "our capitalism" that created such wealth?

I found the answer. However, I also learned that capitalism cannot be taught without properly defining wealth.

Wealth of a nation is its amount of usable goods. I use the term usable goods to exclude paintings and other speculative items. Poverty is a lack of usable goods, such as clothes or food. A large supply of usable goods brings prices down and reduces poverty. We became wealthy because we produced an enormous amount of usable goods. But how did that happen?

Usable goods are created by factories. It is not the amount we pay factory workers that is important; it is the millions of hammers, shoes, and vehicles they produce that create wealth. Farmers and utility workers can be included with factory workers who produce usable goods for millions of people.

Cyrus McCormick's reaper would supply a large amount of food, but sales were difficult and slow. The reaper would break down on farms far away. McCormick had difficulty traversing the country making repairs and sales. He solved these problems by inventing a unique idea of setting up distributors. He shared significant profit with the distributors. They stocked the product locally, performed repairs, and made sales. Sales grew rapidly, and McCormick Reapers were supplied throughout the country. The United States became an exporter of food.

Here is the key to capitalism's success: When farmers tried to buy direct from McCormick, he refused and made them buy from their respective distributor.

Other manufactures, of home goods, saw McCormick's success and not only set up distributors, but added another discount to include retailers. Again, customers were sent back to the retailers. Retailing became a very profitable business. In the 1850s, general stores appeared in nearly every town.

It was not greed that made capitalism successful; it was nearly the opposite. It was the sharing of profits with all who sold the product.

Prior to this, women made their own soap, household goods, and clothes and tended their own crops. Men planted crops, hand-forged steel tools, and built what they needed. Rather than make their own goods, people began to buy them at a local store. Rural couples were unshackled from the centuries-old life of paupers.

Rural couples had been purchasing limited goods from peddlers who occasionally passed through their valley. Or they bought goods from catalogues. Returns of goods was an enormous problem, and single sales limited mass production at the factories, which kept prices high.

When couples found they could buy any goods they wanted at a general store, demand for home goods exploded. Prices for household goods and farm equipment fell due to the resulting mass production. Farm families soon found buyers for their excess farm produce, and those profits were spent on fast-declining prices of home goods. Men could afford farm equipment, and women bought dresses rather than made them. Rural people and the merchants became wealthy. America soon became known as the "land of opportunity."

Incomes were rising while prices steadily fell for decades, up to and including the Roaring Twenties. Introduction of the income tax reversed the trend. In the 1930s, the lowest income tax bracket was raised to 24 percent and the highest income bracket to 94 percent.

Capitalism is not simply free markets. We are not free to bargain for the price of milk in a store. We are not free to bargain with the factory. The epitome of free markets are barter societies in the Middle East. They are free to bargain with the retailer and the factory. High-volume factories cannot survive in a barter society, and those societies are mired in poverty as a result.

Capitalism is a self-perpetuating economic system designed to increase sales using a structure of profits for all who sell the product, and those profits are protected by the factories. That is what created millions of usable goods, reduced prices, reduced poverty, and created our great wealth.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 16:20

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With "Baker's Dozen" To Flip Cases

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

On NBC's "Meet the Press," Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a "baker's dozen," or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn's "baker's dozen" is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

"Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker's dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours."

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

"The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect."

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR's infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 15:40

NY Prosecutor Says He Was Told To 'Find Crimes' To Target Trump Allies

A veteran prosecutor in New York Attorney General Letitia James' office says he was ordered to find crimes to pin on people connected to President Donald Trump, and the fallout left him on paid leave within days.

Daniel Wiesenfeld, a former Brooklyn prosecutor who moved into James' Investor Protection Bureau, sent an email to roughly 2,000 colleagues on Friday laying out what he says happened inside the office. The email disappeared from inboxes not long after it went out, but the Times-Union obtained a copy before it was deleted.

Wiesenfeld wrote that Bureau Chief Shamiso Maswoswe directed him to build cases against "Trump himself, Truth Social, Hewlett Packard (DOJ approved merger)... without having a credible reason for targeting this organizations and individuals [sic]."

The Hewlett Packard matter goes back to a $14 billion merger between Hewlett Packard Enterprise and Juniper Networks that the federal government approved. Wiesenfeld says his bureau chief wanted him to dig into a transaction that Washington had cleared. In his account, the office picked the target based on who stood to benefit rather than the merits of any case.

Wiesenfeld drew the comparison James' office would rather nobody draw. He wrote in the email, "If you believe Trump is using the [Department of Justice] attorneys to prosecute his enemies and further his political interests, you should find it equally troubling that Tish [James] is doing exactly the same thing."

He asked his colleagues to reconsider their role, writing, "I ask you that you not serve as Tish's personal attorneys by targeting her political enemies. Instead, I hope you choose to prosecute crimes and find the individuals accountable, rather than targeting individuals and then finding crimes."

Wiesenfeld pointed his colleagues toward work he considers worth the office's time, urging them to focus on "rampant nonprofit homeless shelter fraud and antisemitic crimes in and around synagogues" instead of chasing James' political enemies. He accused her of burning "significant public taxpayer dollars to target convenient public enemies."

The office placed Wiesenfeld on paid administrative leave once the email surfaced. A spokesperson for James dismissed the episode as "a personnel matter" in a statement to the Times-Union.

James' office issued a broader denial too, calling itself "committed to upholding New York's laws and protecting the rights and freedoms of all New Yorkers, regardless of political beliefs," and adding, "We strongly reject any assertion to the contrary."

However, this denial conflicts with James' own actions. In December 2018, a month after she was elected attorney general, she promised to 'prosecute the president for crimes committed in New York State.' After she took office, she certainly carried out that promise. In 2024, her office obtained a $364 million civil fraud judgment against Trump, his sons, and his company, on the grounds that he had inflated the values of his properties and misrepresented his wealth to obtain loans from Deutsche Bank. During the trial, David Williams, Deutsche Bank's own managing director, testified in Trump's defense, undermining James' assertion that Trump had defrauded the bank. The appeals court confirmed the original verdict but canceled the huge financial penalty.

For Republicans in the state, Wiesenfeld's email was confirmation of what they have argued for years.

"Letitia James weaponized the attorney general's office into a political hit squad and then tried to cover up her tracks. She is utterly unfit to serve." New York State Republican Committee Chairman Ed Cox told the New York Post. "New Yorkers deserve an attorney general who prosecutes criminals, preserves public records and enforces the law without fear or favor."

Nicole Kiprilov, spokesperson for Republican attorney general candidate Saritha Komatireddy, said, "When Saritha is attorney general, she will instruct her attorneys to lock up repeat offenders, build residential treatment for the homeless, and root out fraud - not target people because of their politics." She added, "It's good to see that even the rank-and-file in the AG's office agree that this is the right way forward. Let's work together - across partisan lines - and create a safer, more affordable New York."

Komatireddy built her resume for exactly this argument, spending years in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn as chief of International Narcotics and Money Laundering, deputy chief of Appeals, and deputy chief of General Crimes. She also clerked for then-Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals.

But what's really telling is that even James' fellow Democrats aren't rushing to her defense.

Melissa DeRosa, a former aide to former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, wrote on X that James "has been abusing her office for political gain for years." DeRosa followed with a line that cuts both ways, writing, "Don't criticize Trump's use of DOJ if you're not going to call out hers -/ it's wrong when either side does it."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 14:40

Pentagon Launches Grok And ChatGPT For Military Use

Authored by Timothy Frudd via The Epoch Times,

The Department of War announced the launch of two new artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for military use on Aug. 31, expanding the department's platform of AI assistants for military personnel.

Starshield AI's Grok for Government and OpenAI's ChatGPT Mil were both added to the War Department's GenAI.mil generative AI platform on Monday. The Aug. 31 launch came months after the Pentagon announced a partnership with OpenAI to deploy AI models on the Pentagon's classified networks and a partnership with Elon Musk's xAI service to assist personnel with controlled unclassified information.

Announcing the launch of Starshield AI's Grok for Government, the War Department said the AI tool would enable the military to execute missions faster and with more precision in multiple operational contexts. Examples of such contexts include supply chain management for logisticians and market research analysis for acquisition professionals.

The Pentagon said Starshield AI's Grok for Government would provide military personnel with "immediate productivity gains, stronger knowledge continuity, and more secure and efficient collaboration." Capabilities department personnel will have access to include adaptive reasoning modes, customizable workspaces, deep-thinking inference, persistent projects, and reusable "playbooks."

Starshield AI's Grok for Government was accredited for controlled unclassified information at impact level five, a designation given to unclassified information that still requires security safeguards. It was also engineered for "secure, consistent enterprise use," according to the War Department.

With the addition of Starshield AI's Grok for Government to the department's GenAI.mil platform, the Pentagon said military members would have access to another "top-tier generative AI tool." The Pentagon also said the addition of another AI tool would promote a "vibrant" AI ecosystem for the United States and would eliminate its dependence on a single AI provider.

The War Department also announced Monday that it had launched OpenAI's ChatGPT Mil as part of its GenAI.mil platform. Like Starshield AI's Grok for Government, OpenAI's ChatGPT was accredited for controlled unclassified information at impact level five.

"ChatGPT Mil brings a familiar commercial experience into the Department's secure environment, tailored to warfighter needs," the Pentagon said. "The core experience centers on chat, files, projects, and custom GPTs, with additional features sequenced over time."

The department said ChatGPT Mil will support document-heavy unclassified work, including planning, logistics, administration, and policy. Built to support more than 3 million personnel, the AI platform will increase the speed of routine tasks and allow personnel to concentrate on "more critical projects across the Joint Force," the Pentagon said.

"Integrating ChatGPT Mil into GenAI.mil alongside existing frontier AI capabilities establishes a robust, multi-model ecosystem for the warfighter," it added.

The Epoch Times reached out to Starshield AI and OpenAI for comment but did not receive a response before publication time.

The War Department confirmed Monday that more than 1.7 million of its more than 3 million personnel have been onboarded for the department's generative AI platform since GenAI.mil was launched nine months ago.

The launch of the two AI tools for use by War Department personnel comes after the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency warned in June that unauthorized "shadow AI" tools could cause data leaks and lead to other security risks.

"Shadow AI encompasses two distinct threat vectors: the intentional use of external commercial or private [large language models], and the activation of embedded AI features within existing government and sensitive networks that have not yet been fully evaluated for security risks," the agency wrote in an assessment.

"When bypassing traditional security controls, both vectors create a massive, unmonitored attack surface where new risks outpace current technical safeguards and governance."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 14:20

As Diesel Crack Explodes Higher, DNB Warns Beijing Has "Little Reason" To Rescue The West

Bloomberg's NYMEX one-month heating-oil/crude spread, tracked on the Terminal as the HOCL1 Index, breached $100 per barrel early Tuesday before surging to nearly $106 by late morning.

The historic blowout is a major warning that refinery outages in Russia (read Goldman's latest diesel warning), restrictions on industrial fuel exports, and continued disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz are deepening a crisis concentrated in finished fuels rather than in crude availability.

Larger time frame:

We first warned:

Diesel crack spread hits record high, just shy of $100 https://t.co/pxNKK1OUeR pic.twitter.com/uAciv62yPk

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 13, 2026

The latest snapshot of the worldwide refined-products squeeze came Tuesday morning from Kelly Chen, a senior economist at DNB Carnegie specializing in China, emerging markets, and energy markets.

Chen noted that China is one of the few countries with enough spare refining capacity to provide meaningful relief to the increasingly strained global market.

However, Chen pointed out that Beijing appears to have little economic or strategic incentive to rescue Western fuel markets.

"Some clients ask us if China can be a potential source of relief for the product markets," the senior economist wrote in the note.

She continued, "As product exports through the Strait of Hormuz remain heavily disrupted and Ukrainian attacks have constrained Russian refining, China is one of the few regions with room to materially raise refinery throughput and exports quickly."

"Beijing did increase its refined product export quotas in July, but they remain well below 2025 levels. The question is whether the authorities have an incentive to raise product exports further," she said.

Chen argued that China is unlikely to rescue global diesel markets, writing, "If US pressure forces China to reduce or halt purchases of Iranian oil, China would have to either compete more aggressively for scarce crude oil barrels or draw further on its own strategic inventories. Either option would weaken China's own energy security to ease a shortage elsewhere. China has already tapped its own buffers to absorb the disruption to crude oil and may not have appetite to do much more. Furthermore, high road-fuel prices could boost global demand for Chinese electric vehicles/energy technologies. Thus, until crude oil supplies become less disrupted, we suspect Chinese authorities have little reason to significantly raise product exports."

Professional subscribers can read the full note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 14:00

Republican Campaign Arms Ask Supreme Court To Restore Cheapest TV Ad Rates Ahead Of Midterms

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

Republican committees have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to allow them access to lowest-rate television ads before the November midterms after a federal appeals court ruled that only candidates are entitled to the special campaign rate required by law.

The Supreme Court in Washington on Aug. 31, 2026. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

The emergency application by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) and the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), which was docketed on Aug. 31, has been presented to Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts may act on it by himself, or he may refer it to the full court.

Roberts has directed the respondents - former Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio); Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.); former North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat; and Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-Mich.) - to file a response to the application by midday on Sept. 3. Brown, Ossoff, and Cooper are currently running for the Senate; Rivet is seeking reelection to the House.

The NRCC and NRSC view the matter as urgent because Sept. 4 is the first day of the 60-day period before the Nov. 3 midterm elections, when federal law requires broadcasters to sell candidates airtime at their cheapest rate. They are asking the Supreme Court to put the appeals court ruling on hold before that window opens. If the high court does not do so, they say they will have to pay full freight for the rest of the campaign cycle, and that stations have already begun to cancel the cheaper reservations they previously made.

The federal Communications Act provides that in the 45 days before a primary election and 60 days before a general election, broadcasters must charge legally qualified candidates no more than the lowest rate offered to their most favored customers. This is known as the Lowest Unit Rate rule. The rule does not apply to streaming and social media ads.

In March of this year, the staff of the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) Media Bureau issued an interpretive guidance reminding both television and radio broadcasters about the rule. The public notice reiterated that favorable rates must be provided to "authorized committees that engage in joint fundraising with legally qualified candidates" and to "advertisements that qualify as coordinated expenditures."

The respondents appealed the notice to the full FCC, and when it failed to rule, they argued that it amounted to constructive denial of the appeal and took the matter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

They argued that the Communications Act requires the cheap airtime rate be given to candidates, not political parties. They also said that when a party buys an ad that a candidate approves, it is the party spending its own money - not the candidate, and if the candidate rate still applied, it would constitute an illegal gift to the candidate's campaign.

A panel of the appeals court agreed with the respondents, voting 2-1 to vacate the notice.

The panel held that the lowest unit charge applies only to a legally qualified candidate, not to party-coordinated ads and joint fundraising committee ads with non-candidate members. The panel also determined it had jurisdiction, or authority, to hear the case even though the full FCC had not yet completed reviewing the notice.

A dissenting judge said the court should not have reviewed the guidance while it was pending at the FCC and that barring parties from the discount rate restricted political speech on the eve of an election.

The NRCC and NRSC said in the application that the Fourth Circuit erred and that its decision is hurting the two committees.

"In the midst of election season, a divided Fourth Circuit panel just rewrote longstanding rules about preferential broadcast rates for political ads," at the behest of Democratic candidates "who said those rules favor their electoral opponents," the Republican committees said.

The panel's decision violates two jurisdictional principles and splits with multiple federal courts of appeals, while it "restrict[s] political speech in the sensitive period leading up to an election," they said.

The Fourth Circuit ruling also ignores the Supreme Court's recent instruction that courts should not treat incomplete agency work as final for purposes of filing an appeal, they added.

The two committees have budgeted tens of millions of dollars for ad purchases based on the rules that were in effect before the panel ruled, "but because of the Fourth Circuit's decision, broadcast stations are already rescinding those rates," they said.

The circuit court denied a request to pause its order on Aug. 27 and allowed its ruling to take effect the same day.

The NRCC and NRSC asked the Supreme Court justices to act before Sept. 4. The Trump administration weighed in to support the application.

Justice Department Solicitor General D. John Sauer is arguing that the respondents are appealing prematurely, lack standing to challenge the FCC notice, and have mischaracterized it, according to his brief.

The notice "does not grant favored treatment to one side or the other; instead, the notice's interpretation offers the same benefit to all sides, including the challengers themselves," he said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 13:40

'Barbaric': Children Under Five Being Subjected To Forced Marriage In Britain

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Britain now has children aged five and under on the books of the Forced Marriage Unit. Home Office figures obtained through Freedom of Information requests show at least 27 children five or younger were referred between 2021 and 2025.

They sit inside a wider total of more than 100 children aged 12 or under. A referral is not a completed marriage. It is information about an actual, potential or suspected forced marriage. Campaigners say the real number is far higher because so many cases never reach statutory services.

The legal age of marriage in England and Wales was raised to 18 in 2023. Forcing anyone to marry is already a criminal offence. The practice continues anyway. And it's quite clearly an imported problem.

'This is barbaric, medieval and, crucially, we've imported this problem.'@PatrickChristys reacts to new findings that children under the age of 5 are being forced to marry in Britain, and discusses how far the practice is driven by specific cultures. pic.twitter.com/RbZG2QhvDA

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 31, 2026

Patrick Christys was blunt. "This is barbaric, medieval and, crucially, we've imported this problem." He noted that Pakistanis account for 41 percent of Forced Marriage Unit cases, Bangladeshis 9 percent and Afghans 7 percent.

A large share of those cases involve children. The idea that people arrive, kiss British soil and instantly absorb British norms does not survive contact with the data.

Shockingly, some cases even have no overseas element at all. In 2022 there were nine referrals of children aged 12 or under where the suspected or actual forced marriage would have taken place entirely on British soil. Separate 2025 figures show cases with no overseas link rising to 58, or 14 percent of the total.

'Still today there are so many people and networks that are terrified of being called racist.'

Political commentator Chloe Dobbs condemns the silence from the mainstream media on issues such as forced child marriage and grooming gangs, and their link to foreign cultures. pic.twitter.com/niCUUCplSl

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 31, 2026

Dame Jasvinder Sanghera, who fled a forced marriage at 14 and later received a damehood for her work with victims, called the numbers "deeply disturbing."

She said some children are "promised to somebody from birth," with the ceremony years later. She warned that when schools reopen in September there will be missing children. "Is somebody going to ask where they are, or are they simply just going to go off school roll? Or children will come back engaged or even married."

Sanghera also described the tactic used to shut down scrutiny. Perpetrators "will try and put you on the back foot. 'This is our culture. This is our religion. You're being racist' or whatever, to put you on the back foot, to make you look the other way."

She added that professionals still lack confidence to report. "Cultural acceptance does not mean accepting the unacceptable."

Journalist Khadija Khan told GB News the published figures are "likely just the tip of the iceberg, because many cases remain unreported." She said the 27 children under five made the statistics "horrifying."

"One child being robbed of her childhood and forced into marriage is one too many and it is unimaginable how this has been allowed to happen," Khan said, adding Britain can "no longer pretend that we have been sleepwalking through this nightmare." The practice has been happening "under the nose of the authorities."

She named the communities where it is most common: "The Pakistani community, Bangladeshi community and Afghan community, in many cases the practice of forced marriage has been euphemistic for arranged marriage." Families do it for honour, to keep wealth inside the family, or in exchange for money. Some make promises at birth.

'We can no longer pretend that we have been sleepwalking through this nightmare.'

Journalist Khadija Khan says that the figure of 40% of forced marriage cases in the UK involving children is 'likely just the tip of the iceberg'. pic.twitter.com/t1kVDuUvhw

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 31, 2026

Dr Taj Hargey, founder of the Oxford Institute for British Islam, said forced marriage involving children should be "condemned without fear of upsetting anyone." "This should be totally condemned by the Muslim society up and down the UK."

'This should be totally condemned by the Muslim society up and down the UK.'

Founder of the Oxford Institute for British Islam, DR Taj Hargey says forced marriage involving children in the UK should be 'condemned without fear of upsetting anyone'. pic.twitter.com/h6ONbn9LaW

— GB News (@GBNEWS) August 31, 2026

Reform UK home affairs spokesman Zia Yusuf tied the rise directly to scale. "This sudden rise in forced marriages tracks almost perfectly with the Boriswave, which saw the Tories import four million new people into the UK. The Conservatives will never be forgiven for this complete and utter betrayal."

The same institutional reflex that treated child sexual exploitation as a community-relations problem now treats child marriage the same way.

Mayor Sadiq Khan told the London Assembly in January 2025 there were "no reported cases and also no indication of the grooming gangs" in London. The Metropolitan Police later identified more than 4,000 potential child sexual exploitation cases that may need reopening, drawn from around 12,000 reports dating back to 2010.

Many had been closed with no further action. Conservative assembly member Susan Hall called the scale "utterly disgraceful."

The pattern is familiar. Ethnicity and culture were treated as too sensitive to record properly. Victims were told the men who abused them were "probably not going to catch them." A 2020 Home Office report that claimed most perpetrators were white was built on incomplete data and used to shut down discussion.

Working-class girls paid the price. The same fear of being called racist now sits over teachers, social workers and neighbours who might otherwise report a five-year-old being prepared for marriage.

This is not happening in a vacuum. In the three months to June 2026, 140,122 foreign nationals were granted indefinite leave to remain or citizenship - more than one every minute. Nearly 200,000 received ILR across the full year, a 16-year high.

Citizenship grants hit 245,520. Home Office forecasts suggest 1.3 to 2.2 million more settlements between 2026 and 2030. The asylum system alone cost £4.3 billion in 2025/26 and £25 billion over the last decade.

You cannot import large numbers of people from societies where cousin marriage, honour codes and child betrothal are normal and then act shocked when those practices travel with them.

The Home Office still recites that forced marriage is "not a problem specific to one country, religion or culture." The 2025 country breakdown tells a different story. Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan dominate the caseload.

Britain raised the marriage age and made forced marriage a crime. It then spent years importing the very cultures that treat those laws as optional.

Professionals who notice a child missing after the summer holidays or returning "engaged" are still expected to worry first about whether the report will be labelled racist. That is not multiculturalism. It is the abandonment of the most basic duty a country has to its children.

The numbers are public. The quotes are on the record. The schools open again this week. The question is whether anyone in authority is still allowed to say what is happening.

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 13:00

Shein IPO Flops As Fast-Fashion Empire Sees Growth Slowdown

Chinese online fast-fashion retailer Shein made its long-awaited Hong Kong market debut Tuesday, only to fall flat in what can only be viewed as a disappointing IPO plagued by investor concerns about slowing growth, rising costs and an increasingly challenged international business model.

"Shein's many challenges are well known to investors and likely behind the sharp share-price fall on IPO day," Vey-Sern Ling, managing director at Union Bancaire Privée, wrote in a note. "Growth is slowing and losses rising amid stiff competition from both e-commerce and fast-fashion players. More critically, its business model continues to be disrupted by evolving international regulations."

Shen Meng, director at Beijing-based investment bank Chanson & Co., said, "With investors favoring AI and technology-related plays in Hong Kong, Shein's appeal is relatively limited as a traditional e-commerce company that relies heavily on price competition," adding, "Rising costs linked to US-China trade tensions and a less compelling growth story than Alibaba or PDD are likely to keep its valuation at a discount."

Shein raised $1.7 billion in the offering, giving the  Singapore-based retailer a market capitalization of around $26 billion. That represents a stunning $74 billion collapse from Shein's nearly $100 billion valuation during the COVID boom of 2022.

The IPO valued the company at more than 15 times estimated forward earnings, according to Bloomberg data. That is roughly double PDD Holdings' 7.4 multiple and above the Hang Seng Index's 10.7 multiple.

Shein shares initially plunged 10% during their debut earlier Tuesday before recovering most of those losses and ending the session flat.

In recent weeks, a Chinese robotics firm debuted in Shanghai with a blockbuster IPO, only to slide in subsequent sessions.

The stock is now down about 38% from its post-IPO peak.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 12:40

Trump Admin Asks Appeals Court To Halt Block On USPS Mail-In Ballot Rule

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration filed an emergency motion on Aug. 31 seeking a stay of a judge's ruling that blocked the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) from enforcing its requirements to tighten rules around mail-in voting.

The motion was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit shortly after U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani on Aug. 31 declined to pause her temporary restraining order. That order was issued on Aug. 28 in response to lawsuits from some states and voting rights groups challenging USPS's final rule on mail-in ballots.

At the time, Talwani said the rule was likely unlawful and violated the U.S. Constitution, which gives states the authority to administer elections.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) disputed the finding in its motion, noting that the final rule is "ultimately a regulation of the U.S. mail, and a modest one at that - not a federal takeover of election administration by the Postal Service."

"The rule's improvements and modernizations of USPS's infrastructure for supporting this particularly sensitive category of mail are fully consistent with USPS's statutory and constitutional authority," the DOJ stated.

The DOJ also said that keeping the temporary restraining order in place would cause the administration irreparable harm because some states are set to begin sending ballots during the two weeks the order is in effect.

"Because federal defendants face imminent irreparable harm as soon as states begin to mail ballots - as early as September 4 - the government also requests an administrative stay while this court considers this motion," the department said.

Talwani on Aug. 31 rejected the DOJ's request to lift the restraining order, saying the "late timing" of the changes to state election practices is contrary to the public's need for "clear and settled" rules ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections, which are now just two months away.

The temporary restraining order, effective for 14 days, prevents the enforcement of certain sections of USPS's final rule for elections before or on Nov. 3.

The Postal Service issued the final rule on Aug. 21 to implement an executive order President Donald Trump signed in March. In the order, Trump wrote that the federal government has a duty to maintain public confidence in election outcomes and that additional measures are needed to enhance election integrity through U.S. mail.

Under the agency's rule, states must supply the agency with lists of mail ballot recipients, and all outbound and return ballot envelopes must bear unique barcodes.

The Postal Service, under the rule, may refuse to deliver ballots that do not comply with the new standards or are associated with voters who do not appear on the lists.

Naveen Athrappully contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 12:20