Zero Rss

Evergrande Founder Gets Life But Homebuyers, Suppliers Bear The Costs Of China's Property Collapse

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

The sentencing of China Evergrande founder Hui Ka Yan to life in prison has brought a legal reckoning for one of the country's most spectacular corporate collapses. However, for hundreds of thousands of homebuyers, investors, and other creditors, the ruling does little to resolve the financial losses left behind by the property giant.

Xu Jiayin, also known as Hui Ka Yan, founder of property developer Evergrande, appears for sentencing at the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen, China, on Aug. 20, 2026. Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court /Xinhua via AP

Hui, the founder and former chairman of China Evergrande Group, was sentenced on Aug. 20 after being convicted of crimes including fundraising fraud and embezzlement. His personal assets were confiscated, while Evergrande and its property subsidiary were fined a combined 15.82 billion yuan ($2.35 billion).

Chinese authorities also ordered the continued recovery of illegal proceeds and repayment of losses where funds remain insufficient. Fifty-six other people involved in related Evergrande cases, including Hui's two sons, were given prison sentences ranging from 18 years to one year and 10 months, along with fines or asset confiscations.

Separately, on Aug. 21, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court accepted a bankruptcy-liquidation application against Evergrande Real Estate Group and appointed a liquidation team as administrator, according to an official court bankruptcy notice. Creditors are being directed to file claims in that proceeding.

The penalties, however, do not automatically compensate the people who lost money when Evergrande collapsed.

Evergrande reported total liabilities of 2.437 trillion yuan at the end of 2022, including 721.021 billion yuan in contract liabilities, of which 664.244 billion yuan related to property development. Reuters later cited Gavekal Dragonomics as estimating that Evergrande's advance payments from homebuyers were equivalent to about 600,000 housing units.

Davy Jun Huang, a U.S.-based economist and former columnist for Chinese state media outlet CNTV, told The Epoch Times that Hui's life sentence answers the question of who committed crimes, but does not answer who should bear responsibility for Evergrande's enormous debts and unfinished projects.

"These are two completely different questions," Huang said. "The harsher Hui Ka Yan is punished, visually it feels like the problem has been solved, but in reality, the houses will not automatically be completed because of this, and creditors' money will not be recovered because Hui Ka Yan has been sentenced."

The question of who ultimately absorbs Evergrande's losses is likely to remain more consequential for ordinary Chinese than Hui's punishment.

Who Will Pay?

Evergrande's collapse has left losses spread among several groups, including homebuyers, suppliers, banks, investors, and other creditors.

Huang argued that the fines imposed on Evergrande and its property subsidiary do not themselves amount to direct compensation for homebuyers or unfinished projects. An official Supreme People's Court summary adds an important qualification: restitution for losses takes priority over enforcement of fines and confiscation, while illegal proceeds are to be recovered and any shortfall is subject to restitution. Huang argued that the losses from Evergrande had effectively been distributed throughout society among homebuyers, suppliers, and investors.

This has fueled broader debate over whether the regime should use other revenues associated with the property sector to compensate victims.

Huang said such demands were reasonable from both legal and economic perspectives. He pointed to the U.S. government's 2008 intervention in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as an example of the government assuming responsibility when a major part of the housing finance system was threatened.

China's regime, he said, played multiple roles in the property boom, as the dominant supplier of land, regulator, and major beneficiary of property-related revenue, but did not assume the corresponding losses when the market collapsed.

"When real estate was rising, the government used land-sale revenues, land-transfer taxes, and layers of extraction to squeeze out the last penny," Huang said. "When the real estate bubble burst, under the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) political model, the government would not bear any of the losses."

The halted under-construction Evergrande Cultural Tourism City in Taicang, Suzhou city, in China's eastern Jiangsu Province, on Sept. 17, 2021. Vivian Lin/AFP via Getty Images Suppliers Face Steep Losses

The impact of Evergrande's collapse extends well beyond unfinished apartment complexes.

Xu Zhen, a senior professional in China's capital markets, told The Epoch Times that China's local governments were among the biggest beneficiaries of Evergrande's expansion. He estimated that local governments collected roughly 1.2 trillion to 1.7 trillion yuan ($180 billion to $250 billion) in land-sale revenues and taxes directly associated with Evergrande between 2016 and 2021.

That money had already entered regime coffers and would not be affected by Evergrande's bankruptcy or Hui's imprisonment, Xu said.

Xu also argued that state finances would benefit from the penalties. That point is subject to the judgment's express restitution priority, which can affect the order in which recoveries are enforced.

Banks initially benefited from lending to Evergrande but later became creditors themselves. Some of their claims were eventually sold at steep discounts after the company's collapse. Xu cited a claim held by China Minsheng Bank that was ultimately sold for roughly 13.5 percent of its original value.

Homebuyers have faced a different kind of loss - years of waiting while continuing to carry mortgages on homes they may not be able to occupy.

However, Xu identified suppliers as the group that suffered the most severe financial damage.

Under a 2023 Supreme People's Court interpretation, qualifying consumers who bought homes for residential use can, if statutory conditions are met, assert delivery or refund claims ahead of construction-price priority claims, mortgages, and other claims. Construction contractors and secured creditors otherwise retain separate priority rights. Evergrande's June 2023 interim results reported 1.05657 trillion yuan in trade and other payables, including 596.17 billion yuan in construction-material payables.

The debts affected thousands of small and medium-sized companies, many of which had limited bargaining power and few legal resources.

Some construction contractors and materials suppliers collapsed after failing to collect commercial bills issued by Evergrande. In the liquidation of an Evergrande project company in Zhanjiang, ordinary creditors ultimately received a recovery rate of about 0.69 percent, according to Chinese financial reports; Reuters also cited the figure in April 2026.

Evergrande said its targeted wealth-management financing products totaled approximately 92.1 billion yuan, with about 34 billion yuan in unpaid principal and interest as of the end of 2022. Separately, Reuters reported in 2021, citing an Evergrande Wealth sales manager, that more than 80,000 people had bought wealth-management products that raised more than 100 billion yuan over five years.

Evergrande's shares have also been delisted, leaving many retail investors with substantial losses.

Construction workers rent shared bicycles as they leave a building site for a new office tower in the Central Business District of Beijing on April 3, 2025. Kevin Frayer/Getty Images A Boom Built on Political Ties

The collapse has also revived questions about how Evergrande grew so rapidly in the first place.

Taiwan-based Japanese journalist Akio Yaita, a prominent critic of the CCP, told The Epoch Times that the company's downfall was not simply the result of excessive leverage and a bursting property bubble. He said it exposed deeper problems in China's system of political and business relationships.

As long as entrepreneurs maintained strong political connections, Yaita said, access to land, regulatory approvals, and financing becomes much easier. Rising property prices then allowed companies to expand rapidly.

However, such a model was inherently vulnerable to changes in political power, he said.

"China's system makes it difficult to produce people like Konosuke Matsushita, YK Pao, and Morris Chang, who build corporate culture and industrial foundations over decades, and it is also difficult to produce entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, who rely on technological innovation to change the global industrial landscape," Yaita said.

Instead, he said, the system was more likely to produce entrepreneurs who rose rapidly through political connections and then fell just as quickly when those political relationships changed.

Huang described Evergrande's rise as a form of mutually beneficial cooperation between business and the regime.

During the property boom, he said, developers helped local governments generate land revenue and economic growth, while banks expanded lending and met credit targets. The interests of developers, banks, and government officials were therefore aligned.

Huang said he visited Evergrande's headquarters in 2018 to give a lecture on policy analysis and forecasting and warned Hui that the company should stop expanding after 2018. Hui and the company did not heed the warning, he said.

That does not absolve Evergrande or Hui of responsibility, Huang said.

However, the collapse illustrates a broader problem. According to Xu, private property developers can become highly dependent on a system in which land and access to capital are heavily controlled by the state.

"From an employee to a scapegoat is the fate of private real estate owners under the CCP's monopoly over land and capital," Xu said. "Hui Ka Yan is a typical example."

"If you do well, the CCP lets you gain both fame and fortune; if you do badly, it makes you a prisoner," he said.

Hui's imprisonment therefore does not end the questions raised by Evergrande's collapse. For the company's former customers and creditors, the larger issue remains who will ultimately bear the cost and whether any of the money and homes lost in the collapse can be recovered.

Tang Bing and Luo Ya contributed to this report.

```

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 22:45

Has Trump Turned The Tables On Iran - Or Is Another Round Of War Coming?

Authored by Trita Parsi via Antiwar.com, reprinted with permission from Trita Parsi's Substack.

The Trump administration believes it has turned the tables on Iran. Washington assesses that the rerouting of maritime traffic through the Omani corridor, combined with a global shift away from Persian Gulf oil, has reduced the effectiveness of Tehran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, the U.S. blockade has sharply constrained Iran's ability to sell its oil. The result, in Washington's view, is a status quo that imposes greater costs on Iran than on the United States.

That calculation changes the strategic equation. Rather than being forced to accommodate Iranian demands, President Donald Trump now believes he can afford to wait Tehran out. For the first time since the war began, the White House has concluded, time is working in America's favor.

Assuming that assessment is correct, the more important question is what Trump intends to do with this newfound leverage. If Washington interprets Iran's vulnerability as an opportunity to extract capitulation rather than to negotiate a durable settlement, the result is more likely to be another round of war than an end to the conflict. Tehran has already demonstrated that when confronted with a choice between surrender and escalation, it will choose the latter. Giving Iran the same choice again is therefore unlikely to produce a different outcome.

The only way to turn this unexpected shift in the balance of leverage into a political victory is through diplomacy. If Washington's assessment is correct, it now has an opportunity to use its leverage to secure a compromise that addresses its core interests while giving Tehran sufficient reason to accept an agreement. If, instead, the administration pursues maximalist demands, it risks converting a moment of leverage into another cycle of war.

Historically, however, Washington has tended to make precisely this mistake. Whenever U.S. policymakers have concluded that time and leverage are on their side, they have often treated Iranian weakness not as an opening for compromise, but as an opportunity to seek capitulation. The danger is that Trump will repeat that pattern. He will mistake leverage for victory and turn a potentially favorable negotiating position into the continuation of the tragedy that is US-Iran relations.

Trump failed militarily, but thinks he can win economically

America has run out of military options. The clearest indication is that the Trump administration has stopped striking Iranian targets even as Tehran continues to attack ships transiting the Strait. On Monday, an Iranian attack killed a sailor aboard a vessel using the southern corridor. Yet Washington did not respond militarily - even though the second round of the war began precisely because the administration had declared that it could not accept Iran firing on ships.

According to Reuters, U.S. forces have used virtually all of their global stockpile of ATACMS and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) during the five-month Iran conflict. Moreover, roughly 65% of Patriot interceptors, 38% of THAAD interceptors, and almost half of the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missiles have been expended.

The depletion of these stocks appears to have forced Trump to abandon its pursuit of a military knockout and instead shift the burden of economic pressure onto Tehran. That strategy, in turn, appears to be producing results faster - and to a greater degree - than the administration anticipated.

In the American description of events, this success is mainly due to three factors: New, much larger ships are being used that carry primarily crude oil. These VLCCs (Very Large Crude Carrier) can carry up to 2 million barrels of oil. In comparison, other oil tankers can transport between 350,000 and 1 million barrels.

Before the outbreak of the war, approximately 21 million barrels of petroleum and crude oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz on a daily basis. These were carried by 65 to 80 tankers. Roughly the same amount of oil transition through the strait can now be achieved by only ten VLCCs a day. And given that the vast majority of ships transitioning through the Strait in the Southern Corridor have their transponders off, this traffic has not been noted by outlets tracking the traffic.

Secondly, demand for Persian Gulf oil has significantly dropped as numerous economies have started to transition to other sources of supply. Brazil, for instance, has increased its exports and started to serve markets that previously relied on Persian Gulf oil. Most importantly, Beijing appears to have deliberately reduced its oil consumption to prevent prices from remaining above $100 a barrel and thereby aggravating the risk of a global recession.

Third, the war has created economic incentives strong enough to attract ships and crews willing to assume substantially greater risks. The growing volume of traffic through the Southern Corridor, despite the obvious dangers, is evidence that these incentives are surprisingly powerful.

Unlike its earlier illusions about the blockade as a guaranteed knockout blow against the Iranian theocracy, Washington no longer expects economic pressure to produce a quick surrender. Instead, the administration appears to be betting on a slower process of economic strangulation that will eventually force Tehran to capitulate. Faith in a knockout blow has given way to the more fragile hope of prolonged strangulation.

Tehran isn't worried - for now

Iran's calculation is effectively the opposite of Washington's. Tehran doubts the United States can sustain the flow of VLCC traffic through the Strait and believes Trump will have little choice but to return to the Islamabad MOU within the next two to three weeks. Trump may have made progress on oil exports, but LNG and many petrochemical products, including fertilizers, remain unable to leave the Persian Gulf.

Tehran also appears to believe that it retains the ability to halt the VLCC traffic, but is deliberately refraining from doing so for now. The calculation is to avoid escalation while waiting to see whether the United States' depleted military options ultimately compel Trump to return to the MOU.

In short, Tehran does not appear overly concerned - for now. But that could change. If Trump refuses to return to the MOU, or succeeds in turning the balance of economic pain against Iran, Tehran will face a far harsher reality. Just as Washington underestimated Iran's resilience, Tehran may have underestimated the both resilience of the global economy and Trump - the former's ability to shift away from oil and the latter's craftiness in finding non-military ways to effectively reopen parts of the Strait.

Between surrender or escalation, Iran will almost certainly choose escalation. Even if Trump has gained the economic upper hand, Tehran still believes it holds a military advantage. Its options range from more aggressive attacks on VLCCs to strikes on Emirati pipelines that bypass the Strait, and potentially to renewed escalation in the Red Sea.

Indeed, it was precisely Trump's erroneous assumption that Iran would choose surrender over war that helped drive the United States toward escalation in the first place. Washington's recurring search for Iran's breaking point has repeatedly produced escalation rather than capitulation. There is little reason to expect the pattern to be different this time.

The US-Iran tragedy

Herein lies the tragedy of the lethal dance between Washington and Tehran. America's winner-take-all approach makes agreement unacceptable when Iran has the momentum. When the momentum shifts to Washington, the United States comes to believe that nothing short of Tehran's full capitulation is palpable.

Because Iran fears surrender more than war, the cycle oscillates between economic pressure and military escalation, interrupted only by brief and often fragile periods of diplomacy. Put simply, the structure of the situation favors war.

This is particularly visible today as neither side is investing in any real diplomacy with the other. Tehran's "diplomacy" is to simply wait for Trump to return to the MOU, while Trump has barred U.S. officials from engaging with Iran and committed himself instead to economic warfare.

When you don't negotiate when you're weak, because you are weak, and you don't negotiate when you are strong, because you are strong, then war becomes the baseline.

Trita Parsi is the Executive VP of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and an award-winning author. Washingtonian Magazine has named him one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy. Noam Chomsky calls him "one of the most distinguished scholars on Iran"

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 22:10

Assassination Sing-A-Long: Hasan Piker Mocks The Murdered Charlie Kirk To Cheering Crowd

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

We have seen protesters on the left around the country mocking the assassination of Charlie Kirk, even reenacting his murder. Hate traffickers like Jennifer Welch have even justified his assassination. It is all shocking and depressing, but none reached the level of Hasan Piker leading a huge crowd in mocking Kirk and his faith. Before he was murdered, Kirk debated Piker and called him a "socialist hypocrite." What is shocking is not the utter depravity and cruelty of Piker, but the ecstasy of the crowd in relishing the death of someone with opposing views. It is part of the conditioning in what I have previously called an "age of rage."

In the video, Piker leads the crowd in the meme song "We Are Charlie Kirk" at a stop of his "Fear& LIVE" tour, including such lines as "We are Charlie Kirk, we carry the flame. We'll fight for the Gospel, we'll honor his name." His co-hosts and the crowd seem to be laughing with joy.

Joining him at this hatefest at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco on August 21 were reportedly Will Neff, QTCinderella, and AustinShow.

Hasan is wearing his now-signature Mao jacket as the young crowd and his co-hosts laugh hysterically. It is the very essence of this movement to desensitize people, particularly young people, to violence and hate.

In Rage and the Republic, I wrote about this national ragefest. It allows people to hate completely and without thought to the humanity of those being hurt. What people will not admit is that they like it. Rage is addictive, and it is contagious. Just look at the crowd in San Francisco, and you will see the addictive quality of uncut, undiluted hate:

Piker, Will Neff, QTCinderella, AustinShow, and these fans have every right to spread hate. It is protected speech just as KKK and neo-Nazi groups are allowed to promulgate their own hateful values.

What is exasperating is how hatemongers on the left want to enjoy hate speech while accusing others of hate and intolerance. They do so by excusing their actions or views by demonizing those who disagree. Democratic leaders continue the false claim that democracy is dying in America and that this may be our last free election. While made over multiple elections, the claim of the imminent death of democracy (unless they are elected) does not appear to register with their supporters.

Recently the rhetoric has reached hysterical levels. Florida Democratic Senate candidate Angie Nixon has compared Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to "modern-day slave catchers" and the government is "literally trying to kill us."

It is a narrative that allows you to speak like a Nazi while claiming to be fighting Nazis.

Piker thrilled the crowd by mocking a murdered man over his faith and his death. It is more than being simply classless. It is commodifying rage. Piker is reportedly raking in a fortune as are other hatemongers like Jennifer Welch. They traffic in rage to a nation of rage addicts.

It is a scene that only reaffirms the work of Kirk who sought to expose the hate and intolerance of the left, particularly on our campuses. Kirk infuriated many by challenging them to debate. There is no room for reason in an age of rage. Those who try to introduce opposing views on campuses are cancelled or attacked.

Recently, a group of pro-life teenagers were kicked out of the Wydaho Roasters coffee shop in Idaho by an owner who found their presence intolerable. At universities, faculty members have attacked displays and even students in righteous rage. One professor who pleaded guilty to assaulting pro-life students was not only attained on the faculty but even honored by another school.

Civility, and even humanity, become signs of weakness in these times. They gravitate to figures like Abdul El-Sayed who has campaigned with Piker and promises to "choke out" Republicans and refers to moderates like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman (D) as ogres to have their heads cut off and put on pikes.

The American left has found their berserkers, the old Norse warriors who were known to fight in a virtual violent trance. The new berserkers offer the chance to hate completely and without remorse or reflection. Over time, supporters are conditioned to disregard even the murder of those with opposing views. As shown in San Francisco, assassination becomes nothing more than a sing-a-long in an age of rage.

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 Sun, 08/23/2026 - 21:00

The AI Boom Runs On Tungsten, But Global Supplies Are "Running On Empty"

Authored by Almonty Industries CEO Lewis Black [emphasis our own], 

Plenty to delve into with this edition: a stockpile order nobody can fill, two factory shutdowns that should be on your radar and the awkward truth about how few tungsten projects will ever produce a single tonne. It's a busy one. In we go.

Cash in hand but no one's selling

Earlier this year America's strategic stockpile did something that should have been routine and instead caused a small panic. The Defense Logistics Agency – the people who hold the national reserve – went out to the market asking what tungsten would cost. Not an order. Just a question: what's the price?

The market recoiled. There was no spare material to be had, prices were already climbing and here was the US government signalling it might step in and buy at scale. The existing consumers – the people who turn tungsten into the things the military needs – were not pleased about a state-backed competitor showing up. The complaints landed and the request quietly went nowhere.

Because a government agency isn't allowed to move the market it's buying in – its own mandate forbids shoving the price around with taxpayer money. So the buyer who most needs the material legally can't buy it at scale without breaking its own rules. Worse still: the day the DLA puts out an open call for tungsten, it's told every adversary exactly where the soft spot is. You need the munitions, and you're advertising that you can't make enough of them.

The problem is that 30 years of cheap and outsourced can't be undone in two. It's like eating fast food every night for decades – inexpensive, easy, you feel fine, until you're at the doc being told you have terminal health problems. Reshoring is like going back in the kitchen: the shopping, the prep, the washing up. A pain. But the alternative is worse.

There's tungsten in the world. There just isn't much the Pentagon can legally get its hands on – non-Chinese, uncommitted, deliverable at scale. The little the West produces is spoken for. Ours is sold years out. That's not me dodging the point – that is the point. When even the producers are sold out, there's nothing left for anyone to stockpile.

Tungsten markets

Michael Dornhofer, ISBP – assessment as of 14 August, 2026

The response to my last note surprised me. After 20 years in tungsten, I have rarely seen this much interest in the metal – which tells you how hot the price and supply situation has become.

There is still little activity on the tungsten spot market, and so no clear price trend can be seen. Some data providers report slightly lower world-market prices, others keep their figures unchanged, and Chinese domestic prices are even rising. In general, the APT price in the West remains above 3,000 USD/mtu WO₃.

Image via Cantor Fitzgerald: 

Slowly, more downstream companies are realizing that it is not only raw-material prices going up – the whole industry is in a real supply crisis.

The situation in Japan is especially severe. From last year, the tungsten trade between China and Japan came almost to an end, and since the start of 2026 no APT at all has been delivered from China to Japan. That has put Japanese hardmetal and tool producers in serious trouble.

In reaction to the missing Chinese raw material, Japan significantly increased its scrap imports over the last twelve months. Now, however, the USA – one of its main sources – has stopped the export of tungsten-containing scrap by imposing export restrictions. Some market participants say there is not yet enough recycling capacity in the US to process all the scrap it generates, so that without exports there could be an oversupply at home, and pressure on domestic scrap prices.

Some European and US tool producers are also complaining about shortages of raw material. Most confirm that, although they have had to raise their prices, demand for their products has not dropped – which is not surprising: nobody stops building cars or aircraft simply because the tools cost more. It confirms that tungsten demand, at least in the short and mid term, is not elastic to price.

We are in for a very interesting fall and winter.

Michael Dornhofer is founder of ISBP (Independent Supply Business Partner) in Graz, Austria. He has spent more than 20 years in tungsten, including 13 years at Wolfram Bergbau und Hütten, Sandvik's tungsten business, and has worked as an independent agent and consultant to the tungsten and hard metal industry since 2019.

Running on empty

While everyone watches the defense story, you need to keep an eye on semiconductors too. There's a gas called tungsten hexafluoride – WF₆. It's what lays down the microscopic tungsten wiring inside advanced memory chips, the kind the entire AI boom is built on. No WF₆, no advanced chips.

Two Japanese producers, Kanto Denka and Central Glass, made about a quarter of the world's supply between them. Past tense. As of the first of July, they stopped. Not an accident on the factory floor – they ran out of the pure tungsten powder they need, the powder comes from China, and China stopped letting it leave the country in 2025. The Japanese producers ran on stockpiles until the stockpiles were gone. Then so were they.

Samsung and SK Hynix are now scrambling to qualify new suppliers – normally a year-and-a-half job they're trying to do in a hurry – and prices for the gas are being talked about 70 to 90 percent higher for the back half of the year.

So who's filling the gap? China. A Chinese producer has already announced it's expanding WF₆ capacity by a thousand tonnes a year. So: China restricts the raw material, the producers who depend on it go dark, and Chinese producers expand to serve the customers those factories just lost. Starve the competition, inherit the market. I'm not saying anyone drew it up that way. I'm saying it works whether they did or not.

Tungsten stopped being a mining story a while ago. It's a memory story, an AI story, sitting a link or two up from almost everything you're told is the future. It took two factories few people have heard of going quiet to show it.

Everyone's got a tungsten project. Almost nobody's got a tungsten mine.

Ask the strategic metals crowd to name the projects riding to the rescue and you'll get a list that comprises real resources, mostly run by serious people.

Then ask which is producing tungsten today, and the room goes quiet. There's one that went into administration a while ago, which wiped some of its permits, and it's been clawing them back ever since. Even now it's in a phased restart and the financing is still not closed. Elsewhere, there are some former Soviet holes in the ground that Moscow never finished, (China's already taken the best one), and the New York Times had plenty to say about that operation. Then comes the investment decision, engineering, construction, commissioning. Nobody's buying tungsten from there this decade.

I've bored you before on why tungsten resists going from deposit to metal, so I won't again. What's crucial is that Sangdong is processing – not next year, not after a study, running. When the whole field is measured in "targeted for 2027," being the one name in the present tense is the difference between a supply chain and a slide deck.

Behind the Q2 numbers

I try to make this something more than just a company newsletter, but we reported Q2 this fortnight, the numbers are public, and they say something about the market, not just us. Revenue up 498 percent on the same quarter last year, and the business turned from burning cash to making it. One caveat I'll flag myself: the headline $182m net income is mostly a non-cash accounting gain on our convertibles – real under the rules, but not money through the door. The operating number is the one that counts, and it's finally real.

None of it came from Sangdong. Through the end of June the mine was still commissioning – it's only been fully operational since July 1, after the quarter closed. So every dollar of that 498 percent came from existing operations at record prices.

What I'm reading

Tungsten leads critical mineral price gains

In the last edition I said tungsten wasn't like the other critical minerals we all get lumped in with. Here's the chart that proves it. Visual Capitalist ranked 27 of them by price move, using IEA data, and tungsten came out on top at 622 percent – more than three times the next metal on the list.

Scale is the easy story to sell

Two of the world's biggest drug companies, AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb, reportedly talked about merging into one giant. The deal itself is normal enough. The reaction is the interesting part: AstraZeneca's shares fell on the news. Investors looked at two big companies becoming one bigger company and asked the question the press release never does: what does the combined firm do well that neither could do alone? More revenue, more staff, more assets – none of that answers it. It just adds up to size. The Guardian has the story.

The AI boom sees a wobble

Almost every advanced chip in the world is made using machines from one Dutch company, ASML – nobody else could build them. Last week China reportedly built its own, breaking the monopoly. Markets panicked: chip shares fell worldwide, South Korea's main index dropped 11.5 percent in a day, and Nvidia fell more than five percent and lost its place as the world's biggest company to Apple. Sound familiar? It's the concentration problem I keep going on about with tungsten – too much of something critical in one country's hands, and everyone downstream exposed when that grip looks like slipping. Read more here.

Opinion

Ask a room of investors why tungsten matters now and you'll hear one word: defense. Rearmament, drones, munitions, the bunker-buster headlines. It's the stock answer. It's also nowhere near the whole story.

Around 60 percent of US tungsten goes into cemented carbides – cutting tools, drill bits, the wear parts that chew through rock and steel. That's the US Geological Survey's number. Globally it runs close to two-thirds, a figure S&P Global's recent market report puts in the same range. Defense and semiconductors matter – they're why governments suddenly care – but by volume they're the smaller part.

Defense demand is political. It moves with budgets and elections and it can stall the moment the headlines do. Industrial demand doesn't work that way. As Michael notes above, when tool prices rise the buyers don't stop – nobody halts a car plant because the cutting tools got more expensive.

So watch the geopolitics, but don't mistake the loudest demand for the largest. The metal is going into the most ordinary work imaginable, and that's why it isn't getting cheaper.

*   *   * 

Related Reads: 

• China's Tungsten Chokehold Turns Almonty Into a Critical-Metal Lifeline
• Taiwan Tech Insiders Warn Beijing's Germanium Squeeze Is Hitting Production

Whether the chokepoint is tungsten, germanium, or other critical materials, China's tightening grip on supply has brought our decoupling theme into sharp focus. 

As Western governments accelerate efforts to reduce their dependence on Beijing, companies that control scalable, non-Chinese sources of critical minerals, processing capacity, and secure supply agreements are well positioned to become dominant players in the emerging industrial order.

Assets once thought of as just conventional mining operations are quickly becoming essential ex-China supply channels capable of bypassing Beijing and supporting Western defense, semiconductor, and advanced-manufacturing demand.

 Almonty vs. Tungsten Prices 

Yet, as Almonty Industries CEO Lewis Black emphasized above, tungsten is not solely a defense metal. It is also a critical input for the infrastructure powering the AI boom. Wall Street has yet to realize this fully - but they will. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 19:50

Wary Of Backlash, Pro-Israel GOP Senate Hopeful Asks AIPAC Not To Spend On His Behalf

With Israel's standing in the United States crumbling, America's leading pro-Israel organization has become a focal point of anger among those who think the US government is putting Israel's interests ahead of America's. Political candidates have started seizing on this, attacking opponents who are backed by that group -- AIPAC. So for, that's largely been a phenomenon in the Democratic primaries, but now -- in a jarring indication of AIPAC's ballot-box toxicity -- staunchly pro-Israel GOP Senate hopeful Mike Rogers has asked AIPAC not to spend money on his general election campaign.  

Rogers, a former US representative who chaired the House intelligence committee from 2011 to 2015, has been a stalwart backer of US aid to Israel, and was one of 12 federal legislators honored in 2015 by the US-Israel Security Alliance for his work to arm the Israel Defense Forces. 

Having won the Republican primary, Rogers faces Democratic nominee Abdul El-Sayed in the general election. El-Sayed is an outspoken critic of Israel and US support for Israel, which is why AIPAC blew through $30 million in a failed attempt to secure the Democratic nomination for the Israel-catering Haley Stevens. In that campaign, El-Sayed deftly portrayed Stevens as beholden to Israel. Stevens had given him all the ammo he needed; indeed, the El-Sayed campaign created a website that did nothing but show this cringy Stevens performance on a continuous loop: 

Rep. Haley Stevens: "In the United States Congress, I will continue to fight for the people of Israel!"

"Israel comes to me in my dreams!" pic.twitter.com/flVVYp3EWP

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) June 9, 2026

When his primary victory was nearly in hand, El-Sayed taunted AIPAC, saying, "AIPAC, if you're listening, come back and burn it again" in the general election. AIPAC was poised to start running an already-produced commercial for the November race when Rogers talked to AIPAC chair Michael Tuchin in Los Angeles last week, Axios reports. The next day, the commercial was put on ice. 

The extraordinary move by the Rogers campaign is a humiliation for AIPAC, which has long been nearly omnipotent in securing lopsided congressional votes on pro-Israel bills, and in installing pro-Israel legislators while ousting those who dare to offer even mild criticism of Israel. While AIPAC has hit "pause" on its effort in the Michigan Senate campaign, angry AIPAC officials want back in. 

The Rogers camp is wary of El-Sayed using AIPAC support of Rogers as a powerful cudgel in the Michigan Senate race

Rogers' allies are urging AIPAC to use indirect ways to influence the race, so that AIPAC's backing isn't used against Rogers. One technique under discussion is telling AIPAC donors to give their money to a pro-Rogers super PAC rather than AIPAC, Axios reported. The Rogers team has also floated the idea of directly hiring AIPAC's political strategists. However, not wanting to own up to the fact that it has become political poison, AIPAC wants a visible role in the race, with hopes of notching a big win that reinforces the group's power as other politicians stake out their positions on Israel. Things have gotten so icy between the Rogers camp and AIPAC that other GOP players are attempting to intermediate, including Jewish Republican donors. 

According to a recent Fox News poll, 55% of the Michigan electorate want US aid to Israel to stop altogether. The state has one of the larger Arab American populations, and from election to election, it's demonstrated mobility across the Red-Blue divide. Outraged over the Biden administration's blank-check support for Israel's devastation of Gaza, the most heavily-Arab precincts in east Dearborn went for the self-described "peace candidate" Donald Trump in 2024, with 45% voting for Trump, 29% for the Green Party's Jill Stein, and only 16% for Biden's VP Kamala Harris.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 19:15

Elon Musk's Huge Midterm Investment Widens GOP's Money Advantage

Republicans already have a significant financial advantage heading into the 2026 midterm elections, but Elon Musk is preparing to spend up to $200 million to give them an even bigger boost. Wired reports that officials with knowledge of Musk's plans said the range could still change, and that he intends to direct much of that money toward voter-turnout operations in the cycle's most competitive races, with the Texas Senate contest emerging as a likely landing spot.

The Texas Senate race between Republican nominee Ken Paxton and Democrat James Talarico gives Musk a lopsided fundraising contest, though polling suggests the race is closer than Republicans should be comfortable with. Talarico has raised $68.6 million through June 30, mostly from out of state, more than seven times what Paxton has brought in, and he closed the month with $21.5 million in cash on hand against $1.8 million for Paxton, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

The polling numbers complicate that picture. An Emerson College poll from Aug. 9-10 showed Paxton leading Talarico 47% to 46% among likely voters, and eight nonpartisan public polls since the Republican runoff have shown the race hovering around a dead heat.

Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Northeastern University, said Musk's money could help Paxton close some of that financial gap if it goes toward a disciplined get-out-the-vote operation rather than television ads alone. He also flagged competitive Senate races in Georgia, Ohio and Maine as likely destinations for Musk's spending beyond Texas.

"It's a considerable sum that has the potential to shake things up in certain races across the country," Panagopoulos told The New York Post.

Musk's expected 2026 outlay would extend a pattern he set in 2024, when he spent at least $288 million helping Donald Trump and other Republicans win office. Most of that money ran through his super PAC, America PAC, which took in $239 million by early December along with another $11.2 million in in-kind petition-incentive spending, and which paid third-party canvassing firms more than $46 million across the battleground states. Trump carried all six of those states, though his own campaign officials were not convinced the paid canvassing operation deserved credit over Trump's own appeal to voters.

He kept writing checks after the election. Musk gave more than $73 million to Republican causes in 2025, including roughly $45 million to America PAC and three separate $5 million contributions on June 27 to MAGA Inc., the Congressional Leadership Fund and the Senate Leadership Fund. This year he opened with a $10 million contribution in January to Fight for Kentucky, the group that backed GOP Senate candidate Nate Morris before he suspended his campaign in May, and America PAC has attributed at least $1.6 million more to him through March 31.

Panagopoulos expects Democrats to answer Musk's spending in some form. "This is not going to happen in a vacuum," he said. "Democrats will respond, and even if they can't find someone with pockets as deep as this, there are other ways to raise funds to combat what might be happening on the Republican side."

However, money has been the one thing Democrats have struggled with this year. The Republican National Committee entered the stretch run of the midterms with $128 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee, however, has a roughly $2 million net deficit.

Politico reported in July that the three main GOP party committees and their two caucus-aligned super PACs held a combined $657 million in cash at the end of June, nearly double the $334 million their Democratic counterparts held, and that tally does not include MAGA Inc., the pro-Trump super PAC that reported more than $400 million in the bank a few weeks earlier. Democrats have no comparable vehicle. Add Trump's super PAC to the party committees and caucus-aligned groups, Politico found, and Republicans control more than three times the money Democrats have across their equivalent organizations.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee holds $55.9 million to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's $41 million, and the National Republican Congressional Committee holds $92.7 million to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee's $79 million.

Of course, money alone rarely settles an election. In Florida this past week, Democratic socialist Angie Nixon defeated former National Security Council aide Alex Vindman in the Florida Democratic Senate primary, despite Vindman raising $16 million compared to Nixon's $975,000.

But having money helps and can be critical in competitive races. Heading into the final stretch of the 2026 cycle, the GOP is running with a financial structure Democrats do not have, and Musk's expected investment will widen that advantage further.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 18:05

What Makes A Great Entrepreneur? Lessons From The Greats

Authored by Rainer Zitelmann via RealClearMarkets,

What personality traits distinguish successful entrepreneurs? This question has occupied academic research on entrepreneurship for decades, with scholars examining the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial success.

When we want to understand or recognize something, we often do so by making comparisons. About 200 years after the birth of Christ, the Greco-Roman historian and philosopher Plutarch wrote a collection of parallel biographies of famous figures from Greek and Roman history. By comparing their characters, decisions, and lives, he sought to reveal similarities and differences and thereby arrive at a deeper understanding of each individual.

The American economist and entrepreneur Greg Autry has followed this model. In his book "Barons and Bros", he presents four pairs, each consisting of a living entrepreneur and an entrepreneur from the 19th century.

Many readers will be familiar with five of the names: SpaceX founder Elon Musk, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Virgin founder Richard Branson, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, and railroad and shipping entrepreneur Cornelius Vanderbilt. In addition, Autry has chosen Monty Ward, the pioneer of mail-order retailing; Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun; and Palmer Luckey, the founder of the virtual-reality company Oculus.

Formal education played hardly any role. Only two of these eight successful entrepreneurs completed a university degree, and only one of them - Musk - studied economics, among other subjects. The inventor Hiram Maxim, who received 122 U.S. patents and 149 British patents and developed, among other things, the first automatic fire sprinkler, attended a one-room schoolhouse for only five years. Richard Branson is dyslexic and left school at the age of 16.

In my dissertation The Wealth Elite, for which I conducted in-depth interviews with 45 wealthy self-made entrepreneurs, I reached a similar conclusion: there was no correlation between performance at school or university and the level of wealth these individuals later attained. Those who had excelled at school or university were generally not among the very wealthiest later in life.

For these entrepreneurs, implicit learning - "learning by doing" - and the implicit knowledge acquired through this process played a much more important role. Six of Autry's eight heroes were already engaged in entrepreneurial activities as teenagers, learning skills that would later contribute to their success. This, too, corresponds to the findings of my dissertation: What was striking was the way the future wealthy entrepreneurs earned money while still at school or university.

Typical student jobs in which they simply worked for an hourly wage were the exception. There is little doubt that these experiences shaped the young people who later became entrepreneurs. They learned how to organize, sell, and think entrepreneurially. Without even being aware of it, they acquired the implicit knowledge that is so important for successful entrepreneurs and investors. Their early entrepreneurial experiences were the best possible preparation for becoming self-employed later in life.

Most of the entrepreneurs featured in Autry's comparisons would probably never have made careers in large corporations because they were often difficult personalities, unwilling or unable to conform and subordinate themselves to others. All of them were undoubtedly outstanding salesmen and networkers. Again and again, Autry describes his heroes making "cold calls" - contacting strangers they did not know but who were important to their plans.

How often have you tried to write to or call an important person you did not know?

All the heroes in this book suffered major setbacks. Musk's companies Tesla and SpaceX repeatedly came close to bankruptcy, and many of Branson's companies failed.

Palmer Luckey was forced out of Facebook after the company acquired his business because he was considered politically "too right-wing." Vanderbilt suffered a major defeat in the so-called Erie War and, in his unsuccessful attempt to gain control of the Erie Railroad, at one point lost around $7 million - the equivalent of perhaps $170 million today.

Andrew Carnegie experienced one of the greatest crises of his life during the bloody Homestead conflict of 1892; the confrontation permanently damaged his reputation as an employer sympathetic to workers.

Perseverance alone does not explain their success. What matters is the combination of perseverance, a willingness to experiment, and the ability to learn from mistakes. The crucial skill shared by Autry's heroes was their ability to recognize opportunities where other people saw none. This corresponds to the insights of the great economist Israel Kirzner, whose theory of entrepreneurship places the entrepreneur's "alertness" to new opportunities at its center.

In his definition, the "pure entrepreneur" is a decision-maker whose entire role consists of discovering previously unnoticed opportunities.

When it comes to the personalities of Autry's heroes, one thing stands out: they were all nonconformists - in the sense described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter. According to Schumpeter, the entrepreneurial type does not regard the fact that something has never been done before as an argument against doing it. Inhibitions that constitute firm boundaries for the behavior of others do not constrain him in the same way.

He draws different conclusions from the circumstances around him than the mass of static economic actors. He does not care much how others judge his enterprise - and often even takes pleasure in swimming against the current. All of this applies without qualification to the people portrayed in this book.

And there is something else that stands out: Autry's entrepreneurs think very, very long term. Not in months, and not even in years, but in decades. This sets them apart from the overwhelming majority of people.

There is almost no theory in Autry's book, and that is a good thing. His accounts are vivid, entertaining, and full of anecdotes. "The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right." This statement would drive most academics to despair, but it comes from Jeff Bezos, one of the richest people in the world. The entrepreneur's knowledge is different from the academic's knowledge - something intellectuals will never understand.

This book could only have been written by an author who is both a scholar and an entrepreneur himself, and who therefore possesses a kind of knowledge superior to that of the pure academic.

Autry has met all of the entrepreneurs featured in the book who are still alive - some only briefly, others more closely. I have read many biographies of Musk, Bezos, and Branson, and of course I was already familiar with Vanderbilt and Carnegie. Nevertheless, I learned a great deal from this book and read it in one sitting. As a reader, I am already looking forward to Autry's next parallel biographies, since he announces that he intends to write more.

Anyone interested in entrepreneurship will learn more from this book than from many years spent studying business administration.

In June, Skyhorse Publishing will release Rainer Zitelmann's book "New Space Capitalism."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 17:30

Trump Accuses BBC Of Turning Defamation Case Into 'Jan 6' Investigation

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump is asking a federal judge to reject the BBC's attempt to subpoena three members of his family as part of discovery in his defamation lawsuit against the British broadcaster.

Trump's attorneys filed a memorandum Aug. 21 opposing the BBC's request for permission to use alternative methods to serve subpoenas on Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Jared Kushner.

Trump's lawyers accused the BBC of attempting to transform what they described as a narrow defamation case into a broad investigation of the events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021.

The lawsuit concerns a BBC documentary in which the BBC spliced together portions of the president's Jan. 6 speech, delivered nearly 55 minutes apart, while omitting his statement that supporters should march "peacefully and patriotically" to the U.S. Capitol.

The BBC apologized for the editing but said it was an unintentional error and does not meet the legal threshold for defamation.

Trump's filing says the BBC chairman acknowledged that the editing created a "mistaken impression."

According to Trump's attorneys, the BBC sought 126 document requests and approximately 150 requests for admission from Trump, and issued subpoenas to 47 family members, former officials, political associates, and federal agencies.

The court ruled Aug. 6 that the lawsuit did not permit the BBC to "relitigate and discover every aspect" of Jan. 6 or seek discovery from "any and all individuals" with knowledge of the events. The judge directed the parties to conduct a meaningful conference to resolve remaining discovery disputes.

Trump's attorneys argue the BBC filed its latest motion eight days later, without following that process.

They also contend the BBC is seeking authorization to serve subpoenas that have not been presented to the court. The filing says the BBC has not submitted revised document subpoenas or proposed deposition subpoenas detailing what the three family members would be required to provide or testify about.

Trump's attorneys also argued that additional depositions would be redundant because all three were previously interviewed by the House committee investigating Jan. 6. Those interviews totaled 585 pages and addressed subjects the BBC says it wants to explore, according to the filing.

The filing particularly challenges the effort to depose Kushner, saying that he was outside the country during Trump's speech and the subsequent riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Trump's attorneys asked the court to deny the BBC's motion, arguing the broadcaster has failed to justify its proposed ways to deliver the subpoenas and failed to comply with the court's Aug. 6 discovery order.

The BBC declined to comment in response to an email from The Epoch Times seeking comment.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 16:20

Temporary Protected Status Ends For 13 Nationalities

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

A court on Aug. 18 effectively ended Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for the last of 13 nationalities that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) targeted during President Donald Trump's second term.

In total, more than a million foreign nationals living in the United States with such deportation protections are now up for removal.

The 13 countries included Haiti, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Honduras, Nicaragua, Venezuela, South Sudan, Burma, Somalia, and Ethiopia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed Trump to end the status for Syrians and Haitians and did so with reasoning that applied to cases involving other nationalities as well. Some lower courts initially resisted Trump's revocations, but by Aug. 18, each of those judicial blocks had fallen.

Here's what we know about what this means and what's next.

Are Mass Deportations Coming?

DHS and legal experts say the more than one million foreign nationals previously covered by TPS are now, technically, illegal aliens.

The first deportation flight to Haiti since the Supreme Court ruling departed on Aug. 20, carrying more than 160 individuals. Among those removed were former TPS holders and Haitians who served prison sentences in the United States, according to Haitian officials.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who worked on immigration issues, told The Epoch Times that few options remained for the foreign nationals to challenge their deportations.

"That designation is gone. That protection disappears," Rahmani said. "Now, that doesn't mean a million people get deported. ... They still have to go through the normal removal proceeding."

He said that some could self-deport or be removed under orders that were in place before they received protected status.

DHS did not respond to requests for more information on enforcement of the TPS revocations for more than a million foreign nationals.

After the Aug. 18 decision, DHS urged foreign nationals to self-deport - take a free flight home and a $2,600 check - or be removed.

"For decades, TEMPORARY Protected Status was used as a [de facto] amnesty program. Those days are OVER. Those with terminated TPS are now in our nation ILLEGALLY. They must leave now or be swiftly DEPORTED," said the DHS on X.

Court Battles

The DHS secretary has authority to decide when a country merits a TPS designation.

The secretary is also required to periodically review and extend or revoke the status, which is meant to be granted for countries affected by armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary dangerous conditions. If the DHS secretary finds that conditions in a designated country no longer warrant protected status, they can terminate it.

Lawsuits seeking to block the terminations, which were done under then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, alleged the administration failed to follow proper procedures, including reviewing conditions in these countries, before terminating the protections.

Some judges agreed, before the Supreme Court issued a decision over protections for Syrians and Haitians in which a majority of justices agreed with the administration's argument that federal judges lacked authority to review the department's TPS determinations. They noted a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that bars judicial review and clarified that it applied even to procedural challenges, like those brought under the Administrative Procedure Act.

While some countries' terminations were already in effect, others were still blocked when the Supreme Court ruled.

Some of the lower court judges overseeing those remaining cases were accused by DHS of dragging their feet in issuing orders that comply with the high court's ruling.

DHS special counsel James Percival began posting on X a daily reminder of each judge who had not followed the Supreme Court precedent. He singled out District Judge Brian Murphy, who oversaw Ethiopia's case, for waiting more than 50 days to lift his administrative stay on the country's TPS termination.

Although the final judicial block fell on Aug. 18, appearing to be the last breath of the legal challenges against TPS terminations, there remains a small chance that at least one case could be revived.

Lawyers jointly representing Nepalese, Honduran, and Nicaraguan former TPS holders are attempting to amend their initial lawsuit with a new bare animus claim alleging that the Trump administration's efforts to end protected status were unconstitutional "because they were motivated by explicit animosity and a desire to harm TPS holders," an Aug. 20 court filing said.

Lawyers for the federal government argued in their own court filing that the plaintiffs "do not have any prospect of victory."

They pointed to an Aug. 7 decision in Burma's TPS lawsuit that rejected a similar attempt to amend the challenge with a bare animus claim.

"There is a distinction between bare desire to harm TPS holders and animus against TPS policy," wrote District Judge Matthew Kennelly of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. "The Supreme Court's reasoning in [the Syria and Haiti case] points to the latter, not the former."

District Judge Trina Thompson for the Northern District of California, overseeing the Nepal, Honduras, and Nicaragua case, had not ruled on the matter at the time of this publication.

Judge Murphy, overseeing Ethiopia's case, denied the plaintiff's motion to postpone termination of TPS but granted their motion to amend their complaint with a new ultra vires claim, arguing then-Secretary Noem acted beyond her authority in ending protected status.

Regardless, Rahmani said he believed any further challenges or appeals would likely have very little success considering the Supreme Court's decision.

"They can sue, but they're probably gonna lose," he said. "It's been pretty clear the executive branch can remove these protections."

How TPS Was Granted

Protected status can be designated for six, 12, or 18 months at a time and must be periodically reviewed by the DHS secretary to ensure a country is still experiencing armed conflict, environmental disasters, or other extraordinary or temporary conditions.

Some of the 13 countries were initially granted TPS due to armed conflict, like a bloody civil war in Syria that prompted the United States to grant its citizens protected status in March 2012.

Other countries were designated under TPS after devastating natural disasters, including a 7.0-magnitude earthquake in Haiti in 2010, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in Nepal in 2015, and Hurricane Mitch that ravaged Honduras and Nicaragua in 1998.

Somalia remained under protected status the longest out of these 13 countries - since September 1991. Three decades of armed conflict and instability warranted extensions of TPS across multiple U.S. administrations.

About 170,000 Salvadorans living in the United States are set to become the 14th nationality to lose their deportation protections on Sept. 9. The country has remained under TPS since March 2001 after catastrophic earthquakes.

The Debate

Advocacy groups and Democratic lawmakers have criticized the Trump administration's efforts, arguing that some of the 13 countries remain war-torn and unsafe for their nationals to return to. Some judges who oversaw TPS cases wrote words critical of the policy changes in new orders to overturn their previous blocks.

District Judge Allison Burroughs, overseeing Somalia's case, noted in her order lifting her previous block that Somalis once under TPS face a humanitarian crisis in their home country. She described the foreign nationals as "productive members of our communities who have lived here for years, built a life here, worked here and raised their families here."

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul wrote a letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, urging him to reinstate protected status. She said the deportation of foreign nationals from the state's workforce will have a "heavy impact" on a myriad of industries.

"By knowingly and cruelly forcing thousands of families to leave our country and return to their home countries, regardless of any ongoing or worsening humanitarian crises, the White House is committing a reckless and inhumane act," Hochul wrote.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) demanded that the Senate return to session to pass a bill that would extend TPS specifically for Haiti, where she said, in an Aug. 21 post on X, has an "ongoing humanitarian crisis."

The lower chamber already passed the legislation earlier this year in a 224-204 vote.

Meanwhile, federal officials have said TPS is meant to be temporary and has never been designed as a pathway to obtaining permanent U.S. citizenship.

Foreign nationals could attempt to claim asylum, Rahmani noted, which is very difficult to do now in the United States.

Asylum claims are designated for foreign nationals with a well-founded fear of persecution or torture in their home countries.

Rahmani said some foreign nationals could fight their deportation on the grounds that they are married to an American citizen - as long as it's a "bona fide marriage" and not fraudulent.

Marriage is the quickest and easiest way for a foreign national to gain status, he said.

Some may self-deport, taking DHS's offer of a free flight and a $2,600 check, Rahmani said, but others may continue living in the United States "under the radar," as enforcing the end of TPS for more than a million foreign nationals will take time.

"I expect that a lot of people who don't have legal status to be here, they'll continue to remain here, live in the United States unlawfully," Rahmani said. "It'll be up to DHS to find them, apprehend them, and remove them."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 15:10

Karmelo Anthony Request For New Trial Denied After Disturbing Revelations

The narrative of the innocent black kid standing up to "white bullies" is falling apart.  Karmelo Anthony, age 19, was convicted in June 2026 of murdering 17-year-old Austin Metcalf (who was also 17 at the time) by fatally stabbing him in the chest during a confrontation at a high school track meet in April 2025.  A Collin County jury sentenced him to 35 years in prison. Anthony claimed self-defense; arguing that Metcalf "shoved him" and that he was protecting himself.

Anthony's family raised $634,000 from gullible liberals on claims self defense and racism, but their story started to fall apart early in the trial.  His conviction was met with outrage by progressive commentators and Democrat politician who continue to assert that Anthony should be freed from prison.  Efforts were immediately launched for a new trial.

However, Kaufman County Judge Michael Chitty (appointed after the original trial judge was recused) denied the motion in a brief order after a two-day hearing, stating he had reviewed the motion, record, evidence, arguments, briefs, and case law.

  

During the new-trial hearing, previously excluded character evidence was discussed that was kept out of the original trial.  Under an informal “gentleman’s agreement” between prosecutors and defense, this evidence was omitted and focus was limited to the day of the incident in order to avoid "inflaming racial tensions".  

This new evidence included text messages and notes from Karmelo Anthony expressing extreme violence.  Examples included messages about stabbing someone and “licking the blood off the blade.”  There were threats toward an ex-girlfriend, including a photo of a knife and Anthony saying he was “low key on the verge” the day he murdered Austin Metcalf. 

There were also reports of Anthony stalking his ex-girlfriends, other threats of violence, school disciplinary issues involving fights, jokes about school shootings, and related content.

These revelations help to paint a picture of a warped individual that seemed to be looking for an opportunity for a violent encounter.  This helps to explain why Anthony invaded the tent of an opposing high school team and refused to leave - He may have wanted someone to confront him, and that person just happened to be Austin Metcalf.  Had it not been Metcalf it's likely that Anthony would have simply killed someone else down the road.

Defense lawyers say they plan to appeal the case to the 5th Court of Appeals in Dallas.

  

The incident became a flashpoint for racial tension in the US, with leftists and black activists celebrating the murder of Metcalf as "payback" for the "crimes of white America."  It's a trend which has been gestating for many years due to woke ideology and the concept of social and financial "reparations" in the name of righting the wrongs of the past by punishing white people today.  

The case also brought many misconceptions about self defense law to the surface and proved that, sadly, far too many people are ignorant of how these laws work.  Deadly force cannot be used without a legitimate threat to life and limb.  Feeling insulted because someone call you out for bad behavior, or being shoved out of a tent, is not legal grounds to murder that person.

Ultimately, the Karmelo Anthony case once again exposed a dangerous disconnect between black culture and the rest of America.  Their seething obsession with "respect" that they have not earned is leading the black community down a path to disaster.    

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 14:35

WHO Says Pandemic Determinations Can Be Made Without 'Evidence Of Illness'

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via Modernity News,

The World Health Organization (WHO) says evidence that a person is actually sick is not required for a "laboratory-confirmed" human influenza infection with "the potential to cause a pandemic" to trigger mandatory international reporting.

"Evidence of illness is not required for this report," WHO states in its latest Influenza at the Human-Animal Interface assessment, which covered July 8 through August 7, 2026.

WHO says countries must "immediately notify WHO of any laboratory-confirmed case of a recent human infection caused by an influenza A virus with the potential to cause a pandemic."

Then, immediately afterward:

"Evidence of illness is not required for this report."

The statement raises an obvious question: If evidence of illness is not required to set off a chain of events that could trigger authoritarian international pandemic response, what evidence is required?

WHO points to a "laboratory-confirmed" finding.

But WHO's own influenza laboratory manual shows that such determinations are made using real-time RT-PCR tests.

But PCR does not directly observe a virus.

It measures fluorescence (the amount of light emitted) from test chemicals mixed with a sample.

WHO describes PCR methods using fluorescent dyes and probes carrying a fluorescent reporter and quencher.

But fluorescence can also increase through unintended pathways, potentially contributing to a false-positive reading.

Those pathways include reagent cross-reactions, probe cleavage or degradation, reporter or quencher detachment or degradation, optical cross-talk, and changes in reporter - quencher behavior caused by heat - which PCR intentionally applies to the sample over and over during testing.

WHO's manual confirms that PCR repeatedly heats the test material, including to 95°C, and that real-time PCR results are evaluated by whether fluorescence rises above a threshold.

It also explicitly acknowledges background signal, contamination, and false-positive results.

The implications are difficult to ignore.

WHO is saying evidence of illness is not required at the gateway to its pandemic-potential reporting system, while the "laboratory-confirmed" evidence that can substitute for illness may itself rest on light readings susceptible to false-positive signals.

Bottom Line

The world saw what can follow a pandemic determination during COVID-19: lockdowns, business and school closures, masking and distancing mandates, travel restrictions, and vaccination requirements.

WHO now says "Evidence of illness is not required" for certain "laboratory-confirmed" infections with pandemic potential to trigger international reporting.

If nobody has to be sick, and "laboratory confirmation" can ultimately rest on a fluorescence reading, what evidence of actual disease must exist before governments begin exercising pandemic powers?

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 14:00

The Fed Owns Over 50% Of All Bonds Maturing Between 10 And 15 Years From Now

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Treasuries, Treaties, and Treatises

Let’s start with Treasuries. We laid out the approach we would take if we were Warsh last weekend in Warsh’s Mark Antony Moment (a play on coming to “bury” inflation, yet having quite the opposite effect, at least in terms of interest rate policy). 

After Bessent’s “attempt” to drive bond yields lower, we analyzed the possibilities in Treasury, Treasuries, The Fed, and Iran. The primary focus was on bonds, though we had to toss in the “possibility” of Economic Armageddon for Iran.

On Monday we discussed the Fed on Fox Business, but they picked up our theme on Tuesday where Academy was the chyron on Varney & Co. Academy had the pleasure of spending the first half hour on Bloomberg TV on Thursday where we covered rates, Iran, energy, Global ProSec, and maybe even Situational Awareness (it all becomes a bit of a blur).

Please read Thursday’s report, in conjunction with last weekend’s report (or watch the video links) to get a sense of our outlook for Jackson Hole and what the Fed should (or needs to do) to support Bessent’s efforts.

Today, we will add some additional information to reinforce our take on the power of a Federal Reserve Operation Twist.

A Fed “Operation Twist” Is the “Real” Deal

As of today, according to Bloomberg, the U.S. government has $7.5 trillion of T-bills outstanding and $21.7 trillion of coupon debt outstanding.

Bessent is buying “at least $4 billion” per “operation.” These operations are almost weekly, and while the threat of “at least” is interesting, jumping from $2 billion to $4 billion wasn’t enough to move markets for long. This is NOT QE. Gold rose, and the dollar fell, in response to Bessent. Likely overdone as this is more about re-arranging the deck chairs, rather than creating “money,” which is what the “debasement” trade seemed to buy into.

I’m not sure the Treasury Secretary should ever refer to any part of the US yield curve as illiquid. But Bessent did. Maybe he is remembering the “good old days” when nothing happened in August. I don’t think this August was sleepy, nor particularly illiquid.

Having said that, the Federal Reserve owns over 50% of all bonds maturing between 10 and 15 years from now. That seems a long way from “free” markets. The Fed’s holdings of longer-dated bonds are quite high (nearing 20%). It might be illiquid and partially “artificial,” but not in the way that Bessent implied.

The Fed owns almost half a trillion of bonds maturing within the next year.

These are coupon bonds (not T-bills).

The average coupon is 2.9%, so the Fed is bleeding money. They own, on an accrual counting basis, these bonds at the yield they purchased them at (probably lower than 2.9%) and fund at Fed Funds Effective (3.63%). It explains why the Fed was helping to “artificially” reduce the deficit with their payments to Congress, and now they are adding to our deficit woes by bleeding carry.

Let’s imagine the Fed selling that $426 billion, and buying the same notional amount of bonds with 20+ years maturity. A small up-front loss (they’d have to monetize the premium they paid for their bonds), but a very big pick-up in carry (5.25% or so on carry vs funding of 3.63%). It would also represent over 15% of the total amount of bonds with a maturity of 20 years or more (and over 20% of the float the Fed doesn’t already own).

If they decided to do the same with their bonds maturing in 1 to 3 years, they’d have a bigger up-front loss, but more carry going forward, and would own over 50% of the debt outstanding.

I don’t know what percentage of ownership constitutes “cornering” a market, but we’d pretty much be there.

From Warsh’s perspective (and that of all Fed members), Operation Twist does NOT count as QE because it keeps notional amounts the same. If the admin wants to see the long end of the yield curve go down, they need to stop “playing” with the amounts Bessent controls and go all in on a Fed-driven Operation Twist.

Can’t say I’m a fan, but why not?

In the coming days we should find out if Bessent is “on his own” or if the Fed is throwing their weight behind his efforts to control the longer end of the bond market.

When Bond Traders Say “Done” – They Mean “Done”

Whatever else you learned in school, or on the trading desk, the most important thing you are taught is “done means done.” You’ve committed your capital (or the firm’s capital) and it might be a good or bad decision, but you are “done.” You are stuck with that trade. Trying to back out, or change the terms, or beg for some accommodation, may work (exactly once), but your reputation is toast.

I haven’t done a deep dive on any of the following (so I could be wrong), but it is difficult not to see a pattern emerging, that seems problematic down the road. There are many factors outside the public domain, and we all know negotiating deals is not easy, especially when the parties involved are very far apart on many of the issues. However, the concern is that the negotiating strategy we sometimes use could be misconstrued by certain countries and work against us in some circumstances.

• Canada getting 50% tariffs (again). But according to Canada they walked away when the U.S. introduced unfavorable terms at the last minute.
• Saudi Arabia getting help to develop non-military nuclear capabilities. But that seemed to derail almost immediately, when there was “confusion” over terms that supposedly required the Saudis to agree to join the Abraham Accords. Again, the goal is for the Saudis to join the Accords one day, and it is unclear if this was a part of the discussions initially.
• The “Board of Peace” (a misnomer if there ever was one, given some of the cast of characters involved) announced a peace deal between Israel and Hamas. Which would be great if even one of the sides had agreed.
• Not sure why we are “both” pulling back on military exercises in South Korea and reaching out to North Korea. Yes, there are reasons (South Korea importing a lot from the Middle East and not helping in the war, etc.) but still seems odd.
• The original MOU with Iran. Within days, the $300 billion of economic relief sounded like it needed to come from other countries, none of whom had agreed. The language about the Strait seemed pretty favorable to Iran, and different than what the President said (hence why we were quickly back to fighting over it). Iran is notorious for changing terms and making any negotiation difficult, which is why it is said that while Iran has never won a war, it has never lost a negotiation. We know it will likely take more time to get Iran to agree on a satisfactory deal, but the devil is always in the details.
• The UK had the first “friendly” trade deal. Who knows what has actually been documented, but it didn’t stop the U.S. from adding some tariffs for sending troops to Greenland while the U.S. talked about annexing Greenland.

Bottom Line

Either the Fed helps Bessent on Treasuries, or this recent intervention will fall flat (and probably do more harm than good, which is often the case when an intervention is attempted but doesn’t succeed).

My gut is there is more to come, but we really need to see something from Warsh and the Fed at or before Jackson Hole.

Whatever negotiating tactics worked well in Trump 1.0 don’t seem to be as effective during Trump 2.0. I could be wrong, and am playing chess in the wrong dimension, but I’m concerned the U.S. is “kicking the hornet’s nest” (which probably needed to be kicked), but the outcome might not be as good for the U.S. economy (and the stock market) as it could be!

On Iran, it seems there is only so much we can do economically without confronting China, and that is a confrontation that is fraught with dangers to our economy (and another reminder of why we need to smelt, process, and refine things here in the U.S. ASAP – or with our close neighbors, but that seems to have taken another step in the wrong direction).

Or maybe I’m just tired and cranky as the dog days of summer have taken a toll on my psyche. 

And this report had nothing to do with Treatises, but it seemed to go well with Treaties and Treasuries, and I thought it might attract Spider’s attention as he teaches me a new word almost every time we see clients together!

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:50

Did Canada Just Sign Its Own Economic Death Warrant?

Canadian Prime Minister and WEF globalist Mark Carney has been a disaster for Canada since he entered office.  There were many critics who believed the Trudeau regime could not be topped in terms of self destructive behavior, but one could easily argue that Carney is far more dangerous and far more devious.

This week the Canadian government abandoned a nearly finalized trade deal with the US in the final hour of talks, leaving many analysts (and Canadians) bewildered.  According to U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and related reports on the negotiations, the U.S. offered significant tariff reductions that would have given Canada preferential treatment relative to other major exporters.  

The offer included a reduction of tariffs on steel from 50% to 25%, a reduction on Canadian autos from 25% to 15%, a removal of the 10% tariff on Canadian lumber and cooperation on numerous other measures, representing the best deal offered in comparison to any other country which relies on heavily US markets.  Carney abruptly ordered negotiators to walk away, claiming the deal was "not good enough", and declared further retaliation against the US.  

So basically, Carney is saying:
Canadians will lose buying power, pay more for goods, and lose jobs, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make to save face with the “elbows up” crowd. pic.twitter.com/cGVMnahbxy

— Pascal Anglehart (@DemosKratosCA) August 22, 2026

As of this moment 50% tariffs have been implemented on the majority of Canadian goods - The sudden shift represents economic suicide for Canada given their deep dependence on the US.  And what Carney doesn't tell Canadian citizens is, there are no practical alternatives to fill the trade void left behind.

Around 78% of all Canadian exports rely on US consumer markets.  These goods and resources only make up around 13% of all US imports.  Meanwhile, around 15% of US exports go to Canada.  In the US, exports make up 11% of total GDP.  In Canada, exports make up 33% of GDP.  

Economic is partially about psychology, but it's mostly about numbers, and the numbers just don't add up for the "Great White North".  By every metric, Canada needs the US more than the US need Canada.  Without these exports, Canada would suffer severe instability within a few years.    

The Canadian Central Bank, though, has tried to dismiss the dangers of prolonged trade disruptions with the US and Carney has sought to temper public concerns with posturing and bluster:

“You’re at war when you get attacked. We got attacked.”

This "war" rhetoric from the Prime Minister has been constant since he entered office - A clear attempt to sensationalize trade negotiations and excite the Canadian public with existential fears.  Bizarrely, Carney insinuated that the US was threatening Canada's sovereignty, culture and languages.  The hypocrisy of a devout globalist pontificating about national culture and "sovereignty" is stomach churning, but these declarations are highly strategic. 

‼️Just in - Mark Carney addresses Americans in French:

-to my American collegues, let me be CLEAR ... our culture, French language and our soverignty are NOT on the table

-announces SWEEPING retaliatory tariffs on American goods

He will burn us to the ground for Quebec. pic.twitter.com/2OaPPhplSO

— Tablesalt 🇨🇦🇺🇸 (@Tablesalt13) August 22, 2026

Carney has been pursuing trade deals with the EU and China in an attempt to "replace" US markets and save Canadian exports.  These agreements are being hailed by the Davos crowd as a "New World Order" that decouples from the US economy.  However, there are a number of problems.

The US makes up over 30% of total global consumer markets.  The entirety of the EU makes up around 15% of consumer markets and China makes up around 12%.  Together these regions still don't fill the hole left by the US, and there are numerous expenses attached.

China regularly enforces tariffs on Canada, while shipping goods overseas to Europe or Asia adds price hikes to Canadian goods that would not be an issue in trade with the US.  Meaning, they will sell far less overseas. 

Furthermore, Chinese trade deals tend to come with strings attached.  China is seeking economic and resource expansion into Canada, which is ruffling feathers among Canadian companies and citizens.  Beyond that, the CCP often demands influence over government policy within the smaller countries it partners with economically (Canada's relationship with Taiwan has been a point of contention as the CCP exerts pressure). 

This is Carney today admitting that limiting trade with China due to forced labor practices was part of the deal he walked away from.
Translation - Ya we care about forced labor, but not enough to stop dealing with Chinese markets that may or may not use it. pic.twitter.com/YfUTbfrUae

— Ryan Gerritsen🇨🇦🇳🇱 (@ryangerritsen) August 22, 2026

In other words, Carney claims to be saving Canada from being dominated by the US, but he will end up selling his nation's sovereignty to China or the EU just to spite the Trump Administration.

Carney's behavior in light of these negotiations might seem bizarre, but it makes perfect sense if we consider the possibility that his goal is to cripple the Canadian economy deliberately and make it a pawn in a greater war waged by the Davos elite to isolate conservative movements in the US.  The majority of anti-globalist and anti-multicultural movements around the world rely on American efforts to defeat the progressive agenda.

In other words, global lines are being drawn right now for a fight over who will decide the course of the future.  Carney is clearly steering Canada to the side of the WEF ideal.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:15

Tehran At The Crossroads: Iran's Civilian Leaders Call For Peace Amid Crippling U.S. Blockade

Iran's top civilian officials are publicly urging an end to the ongoing conflict with the United States, exposing a deepening internal rift as they attempt to rein in hardliners who champion continued resistance.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a visit to the shrine of the leader of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, in southern Tehran, Iran, January 31, 2026

The financial and social toll of the U.S. blockade is proving too severe to ignore - as Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian recently declared that the country cannot endure a state of perpetual limbo, though he cautioned against making concessions that would appear humiliating on the global stage.

"The war must come to an end at some point," Pezeshkian stated in a Friday address, according to state media. "It is better that we demonstrate our strength and dignity today and tell the world that we have won and that we are ending the war."

President Donald Trump has maintained a relentless blockade on the Islamic Republic after a previous memorandum of understanding imploded - effectively severing the regime's ability to export oil - its primary source of income. This has plunged Iran into a domestic crisis characterized by skyrocketing inflation and an increasingly desperate cost-of-living crisis. The pressure is expected to intensify further this week, as U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent prepares to unveil what President Trump has characterized as an "economic D-Day."

While the exact nature of these punitive measures remains classified, Bessent has strongly signaled the implementation of sweeping secondary sanctions targeting any nation that continues to do business with Tehran.

A Regime Divided

The push for diplomacy from Iran's civilian government stands in stark contrast to the shifting power dynamics among its clerics and military elite. Pezeshkian claims his diplomatic push aligns with the broader goals of the regime, referencing past speeches by Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei - who has conspicuously vanished from the public eye since the conflict escalated.

"I was in the presence of the Supreme Leader, and in his speeches as well, he openly stated that we must move beyond this state of 'neither war nor peace,'" Pezeshkian noted. "We are not going to humiliatingly back down before the enemy or bow our heads. We can sit down with strength, but also with logic, and resolve our problems."

Prior to his public absence, Khamenei had elevated hardline factions who favor military confrontation over the moderates seeking a renewed deal with Washington. Despite this, Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf echoed the President's warnings, underscoring the severe national security risks of a collapsing economy.

"No matter how much military power we have, if our people are struggling and the country lacks financial circulation and economic growth, we will not achieve progress," Ghalibaf stated. "As someone who has experienced war, I understand the true value of peace."

Washington's Stance: The "Right Deal"

The Trump administration's distrust stems from the fraught history of recent negotiations, during which U.S. officials reported receiving deeply conflicting signals from Tehran. The previous agreement shattered after Iran launched a series of strikes on maritime vessels navigating the Strait of Hormuz.

For the United States, the objectives remain twofold and uncompromising: Nuclear Prevention: Ensuring Iran permanently loses the capacity to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon. Maritime Security: The full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to global trade.

Currently, the Trump administration claims it's securing the safe passage of 8 to 9 million barrels of oil through the strait daily - a steep decline from the roughly 20 million barrels that traversed the waterway before the conflict erupted.

Washington is signaling that it will dictate the terms. Addressing reporters on Friday, President Trump summarized the diplomatic standoff: "They would love to make a deal, but they're not ready to make the right deal."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 12:00

Azerbaijan Sues CNN Over Story On Cooperation With Israel In War On Iran

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

There is a novel (and highly dubious) lawsuit filed in Delaware by the nation of Azerbaijan against CNN for a story claiming that it was cooperating with Israel in attacks on Iran. Republic of Azerbaijan v. CNN, Inc. borders on the legally frivolous, but it is likely politically advantageous to show Iran that it contests the allegations.

In its Complaint, Azerbaijan details the development of hostilities while maintaining neutrality:

Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran to the south, is not and has never been a participant in the Iran War. Azerbaijan has not supported military operations by any of the warring nations.

...Azerbaijan maintains a policy of neutrality and independence. Azerbaijan does not host any foreign military bases on its territory and, as a non-aligned state, maintains a strict official policy and legislative framework against foreign military footprints.

The basis for the lawsuit is what the country calls "CNN's reckless reporting" on June 5, 2026 in a post titled "Exclusive: Israel sent troops to Azerbaijan during Iran war, sources say." The article claiming that Azerbaijan allowed Israel to use its territory to launch attacks against Iran no doubt raised the ire of the Islamic Republic.

Indeed, the Complaint lays out how Iran threatened any countries assisting Iran and suggested that the story was putting them at risk of an Iranian attack:

Ali Larijani, a senior Iranian official, threatened: 'The countries of the region must either prevent the use of their soil by America against Iran themselves, or we will.' Similarly, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ("IRGC") has issued a press release unambiguously stating that 'Countries that host the aggressor American military and have placed their land at the disposal of the aggressor criminals for attacks on Iran should be prepared to receive a corresponding response, and should activate their civil defence [sic] units to safeguard the lives of their citizens and move them away from likely targets.'

The complaint, however, faces even more daunting legal challenges. While the Complaint alleges that "CNN's false reporting caused reputational harm to Azerbaijan and threatens tenuous international relations," it is doubtful that a court will view this as a viable tort claim under defamation.

We have previously discussed lawsuits by countries or nationality groups that have been dismissed. The leading case on defamation, New York Times v. Sullivan, expressly states, "For good reason, "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence."

In 2000, a state court dismissed Air Zimbabwe v. Chicago Tribune Co. (Cal. Super. Ct. 2000), due to the fact that Air Zimbabwe is "a government entity, is precluded under the First Amendment from pursuing a defamation claim."

Moreover, there are elemental problems in making such a claim. A country would be treated as a public official or figure subject to the "actual malice" standard, requiring knowing falsehood or reckless disregard of the truth. CNN clearly had sources that led it to believe the accounts were true. Indeed, many countries, including those asserting neutrality, have secret agreements or accommodations in this and other wars.

Proving that no such agreement existed or that there was not a defensible basis for the story would be very difficult.

The question of harm is also intriguing. Many would view cooperating against Iran as an admirable decision for Azerbaijan. Although it clearly puts Azerbaijan at odds with Iran, it puts it in alignment with other countries such as the United States. It is difficult to see how damages would be measured in such a circumstance, even if a viable claim on the merits could be established.

This case asks a court to adjudicate global political questions with shadowy sources and factual claims. I would be surprised if any court would relish such a trial and expect that Republic of Azerbaijan v. CNN, Inc. will soon join the list of dismissed actions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 11:40

"Civilizational Suicide": China's Humanoids Sprint Ahead As Americans Fight Over Data Center And Socialism

The five-day 2026 World Humanoid Robot Games at Beijing's National Speed Skating Oval are well underway, and on Saturday, an AI-powered humanoid robot reached 14.5 meters per second, or 32.5 mph.

china’s AI robot just hit 14.5 m/s pic.twitter.com/0K4wQ4g9pB

— el.cine (@EHuanglu) August 22, 2026

More than 2,000 humanoid robots are participating in the World Humanoid Robot Games across 51 disciplines and more than 1,000 competitions spanning running, table tennis, and soccer.

Holy smokes...

Humanoid robots are coming for tennis.

100% autonomous...pic.twitter.com/0Q3i4GuTfa

— Min Choi (@minchoi) August 21, 2026

The games opened during the same week as the 2026 World Robot Conference in Beijing, where companies displayed 3,000 products, and the blockbuster IPO of China-based Unitree. Together, the events and IPO suggest that China is pulling far ahead of the US in humanoid robotics. The main reason is that China controls much of the global supply chain for actuators, motors, optics, and other critical components required to manufacture humanoid robots.

Welcome to China, and welcome to the future!

Maybe we will soon witness humanoid robot formation in China's military parade.@WHRGFUN ©️@boosterobotics pic.twitter.com/dVqkVRGghu

— Shen Shiwei 沈诗伟 (@shen_shiwei) August 23, 2026

Related:

• China Dominates The Humanoid Robot Race. Can Trump Close The Gap?

Arthur MacWaters, who co-founded Legion Health, an AI-native telepsychiatry company, emphasized on X, "We're having debates about data centers, and China is publicly developing superhuman robot armies. What the actual hell are we doing here, guys?"

Another X user said, "We're shooting ourselves in the foot because we want to sit around and watch Netflix and eat Cheetos."

We're shooting ourselves in the foot because we want to sit around and watch Netflix and eat Cheetos

— Jess Fields (@jessalanfields) August 23, 2026

MacWaters responded, "It's civilizational suicide."

While the Trump administration is moving to reindustrialize the US and reshore critical supply chains, the Democratic Party's socialist wing and its far-left allies are advancing an agenda that risks weakening the country from within.

The timing is dangerous. As China expands its AI infrastructure, advanced-manufacturing base, and military power, DSA proposals to block new data centers and neuter US defense capabilities would undermine two pillars of national power. What may be pitched as economic or social reform increasingly carries major national-security consequences and may suggest that these movements are being influenced by subversive networks within left-wing NGO spheres (read here).

We set the narrative at the start of the year that humanoids will move beyond factory floors towards the battlefield. Ukraine confirmed this (see here). 

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 11:05

The Great Burrito Debate And The Uncomfortable Solution To Inflation

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Recently one of the most important debates in the history of conservative discourse raged across the internet, with sides deeply divided and solutions rare or nonexistent. This debate went largely unnoticed by the rest of the country but it regards the deepest underlying foundations of our economic future.

I am speaking, of course, about the “Great Burrito Debate” of 2026.

Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating about the significance but I do think this conflict taps into the core of people’s concerns about America’s inflation problem. Not only that, but it exposes a lot of misconceptions people have about what inflation is, what’s causing it and who is to blame.

The burrito debate started as an honest discussion about the cost of living crisis and somehow ended up as dog-pile on conservative manners when it comes to economic discourse. Many conservative and libertarian commentators jumped into the fray with their two cents, though, the vast majority of them have minimal economic background, which I think added more confusion than clarity to the issue.

After two decades of macroeconomic analysis (and predicting the stagflationary crisis well in advance of the Ivy League “experts”) I thought I might offer my own perspective.

Keep in mind, those of us in the alternative economic field had to fight against the lies of the Biden Administration as well as establishment economists like Paul Krugman and Federal Reserve officials like Janet Yellen just to wake the public up to the fact that inflation was upon us and that it was NOT “transitory”.

Ultimately, everyone’s bank balances and monthly bills could not be denied and the gas-lighting ended. The only recourse of the establishment at that point was to blame Trump for all of it. The “Herbert Hoover” comparisons were rampant.

Who Really Has The Power To End Inflation?

To be clear, Trump has reduced the size of government by around 12%, which is an incredible accomplishment considering the amount of legal resistance that was put in place to stop him. However, he did not reduce government spending, which is currently 3% higher than under Biden.

One problem is that 60% of all federal spending is mandatory. By law, programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. all scale their spending to match inflation and there is very little that Trump can do about that. Then there’s the rising interest on debt payments, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve, not the President. Trump’s cuts were only focused on discretionary spending, on institutions like USAID, and even those measures were repeatedly throttled by activist judges.

Trump has tried to circumvent the bureaucracy by issuing tariffs as a counter to the debt problem, but once again, activist judges have intervened. For those who claim that tariffs are “causing inflation”, this is simply false. The contribution tariffs make to CPI is negligible (around 0.5 percentage points). The media (and some libertarians) continue to falsely claim that tariffs are an issue.

This is where I think the public has a disconnect from the reality of the situation, and this includes fiscal conservatives who think they are “holding Trump’s feet to the fire” over US debt. The president is not all-powerful and he has very little control over the direction of the US economy. If he made all the cuts these people demand, he would have to become a dictator and he would have to do it by force.

That is to say, they can’t have it both ways. Either the President takes a constitutional hands-off approach to the economy and government spending, or, he goes full-bore Francisco Franco, declares himself supreme leader, and starts chopping out large pieces of the government (the Spanish “Stabilization Plan” of 1959, not the price control plan of 1939 which ultimately failed).

That’s the only way these kinds of policies are going to happen in the US because Congress isn’t going to do jack. Congress’ primary job is to maintain the status quo, not enact solutions.

The reason fiscal reform is impossible is because our modern government is designed to perpetuate itself; it is designed to grow forever. This is accomplished through the bureaucracy, which is the REAL power base within American politics. Most people do not understand that political leaders come and go, but the bureaucracy is forever and there are no term limits.

The socialist parasites within these structures control the direction of the country and the economy (this includes the central bank). When they face any real political opposition, they simply stall, obstruct, and wait for that political party or leader to leave office. Trump, for example, has only four years to redirect a system that has been on the wrong path for decades. It’s not going to happen without bringing the hammer down.

This brings us back to the “Burrito Debate” and the issue of inflation vs public expectations. The debate started with a post quoting college students complaining about the cost of basic necessities including a “$20 dollar price tag” on burritos. This triggered a wider discussion about affordability vs perception, then spiraled into an argument over conservatives not having enough empathy for struggling youth.

Critics asserted that conservative dismissals of the ongoing cost of living crisis will lead to younger generations rushing to support socialism, and MAGA would be to blame. There are two elements to this argument that I think need to be addressed and I’ll try to summarize as best I can.

Gen Z Has No Point Of Reference Because History Is Ignored

First, there’s the issue of younger generations not having a point of reference for how bad the cost of living crisis today is compared to previous generations. Second, there’s the lack of understanding among older generations on where the current crisis is likely headed in the future without drastic action.

Of course, no burrito actually costs $20. This is a terrible contention which is not based in reality. Maybe it’s the most expensive burrito in the most expensive restaurant in a high cost city like San Francisco or New York, but for the majority of the country a burrito is pocket change.

This brings me to the first issue, which is the younger generation’s lack of historical perspective. To be clear, the current inflationary crisis in the US is NOT the worst inflationary crisis this country has seen in modern times. Not yet, anyway.

From 1972-1981 (just after the US dollar was fully detached from the gold standard), the US suffered one of the most brutal series of inflationary beatings in the nation’s history. Inflation rates hit as high as 13% per year, food prices rose by around 120%, rent prices jumped by 75%, home prices rose by 150% and gas shortages were rampant.

The 1970s demoralized middle-class America. The poverty rate hit 14% and the unemployment rate peaked at 9%. Wages remained stagnant or even dropped for some workers. The average yearly income by 1981 was only $12,000 for individual workers. Most younger people today complain about how “the boomers had it easy” with food prices and house prices back in the day. They don’t actually consider how low wages were, or how high inflation was.

The point is, yes, Gen Z is struggling. Their fears should not be dismissed as frivolous. That said, I think because of internet culture and false expectations, many young people assume they are going through the worst crisis of all time and that no one understands them.

In reality, generations before them had it MUCH worse. The inflationary crisis of the 1970s did not end until the Federal Reserve exploded interest rates to 20%, causing a deflationary reset and making loans unattainable for most people for years.

If you are in your 20s and you think you’re not supposed to be struggling, I’m here to tell you that you’re wrong. We all had to struggle, many of us with terrible wages and low job availability compared to today. Don’t expect to be living comfortably until your mid-30s. It’s just the way things have always been.

Every generation experiences periods of economic uncertainty. But this doesn’t mean that there’s not considerable danger looming in the near future.

Kicking The Can Has Created An Economic Time Bomb

What some conservatives get wrong is the notion that the system can be fixed politically and that things will improve if we only keep Democrats out of office. Keeping leftists away from power is always a good thing, if only to prevent the country from going completely communist and cannibalizing itself. But when it comes to inflation, once an avalanche is set in motion it can’t be stopped and this avalanche has been building for decades.

Inflation cannot be reversed without a deflationary event. Since the credit crash of 2008-2009, political leaders and the Federal Reserve have been aggressively trying to prevent any deflation (the Keynesian standard). Which means that America (and most of the world) has not taken the deflationary medicine we should have taken years ago. Instead, we kicked the can down the road.

Some “experts” believe we can kick the can down the road for eternity. This is foolish.

The Catch-22 is that the central bankers must continue to intervene to prevent deflation but each time they do they pump up the money supply and create even more inflation, which then demands more deflation for balance.

The pandemic event was the most recent instance of this intervention. The covid bailouts caused an immense inflationary reaction and the spike in prices that followed is what most of Gen Z is feeling today as they enter the work-a-day world.

If the Fed stimulates, more inflation is on the way. If they hike interest rates and refuse to intervene, the US faces a deflationary crash. This is where we’re at in 2026 and yes, Gen Z and Gen Alpha will be hit the hardest unless something is done. But what?

The only policy solution that makes sense is an organized deflation plan, if such a thing is possible. Meaning, a reformed government would have to eliminate the central bank, hike rates far higher than they currently are, refuse to bail out failing companies relying on cheap debt, then institute austerity measures on social programs for everyone except the disabled and elderly. This is basically what Franco did (while also hunting down hundreds of thousands of liberals and communists, but let’s set that aside for now).

This government would have to find a way to cut spending, balance the budget and also act to mitigate greater damage to consumers by reducing taxes wherever possible (perhaps even ending property taxes on single family homes).

That would require a level of institutional coordination and cooperation that does not exist in the US right now. Again, Trump, or someone else, would have to act like an economic authoritarian and dictate every detail of the operation.

The system could return to a more normal condition after the economic bubble has been strategically burst, but I suspect similar actions would have to take place perhaps every 25 years to prevent another buildup of inflationary pressure. It would be a kind of “reset”, but not in the way that globalists at the WEF imagine. It would be a planned reset coordinated with the public so we are no longer waiting around for the bankers or random chance to decide when a crash is going to occur.

Meaning, each generation would have to accept the responsibility of dealing with a controlled deflationary downturn for at least a few years. Planning such an event would make it possible for the public to prep ahead of time. It could become a sort of deflationary tradition; similar to a Jubilee.

The only other option, as noted, is to do nothing and wait for the bubble to burst on its own. Eventually, high prices will drag down spending enough that deflation sets in. Job losses will jump. The Yen-carry trade will derail. A Black Swan event will pull the rug out from under us – Something will happen that sets the deflationary chain of events in motion and the central bank will do what it always does: Print money.

This is true of almost every country in the world right now. The US is not the only economy facing inflationary dilemmas, it’s just the largest.

A time will come when the dollar won’t be able to take it anymore and the currency system will break. Then, your burritos really will cost $20 or more and that will be a terrible day of reckoning. It’s a conundrum that should have been dealt with back in 2009, but NO ONE wants to be responsible for the financial pain caused by taking that bitter deflationary pill.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 10:30

Death Of Europe's Industrial Base: VW CEO Set To Announce 50,000 Job Cuts

Europe's industrial demise has become impossible to ignore. The continent's automotive manufacturing base is being hollowed out by high energy costs, regulatory pressure, and a flood of cheap Chinese electric vehicles, with Germany, once Europe's industrial powerhouse, emerging as the epicenter of this terrible decline.

Germany's largest manufacturer by revenue is Volkswagen Group, whose CEO, Oliver Blume, is warning employees that the coming weeks will be critical as Europe's largest automaker prepares to detail the most extensive restructuring in its history.

"The next few weeks will be crucial: everyone must pull together," he told local outlet Bild am Sonntag. "We have drawn up the largest transformation plan in the history of the Volkswagen Group."

The upcoming meetings, scheduled for next week, are expected to provide employees and union representatives with new details about the plan to shed 50,000 jobs.

"The next few years will be decisive in determining who stays in the race and who comes out on top," Blume said, pointing to massive pressure to slash costs, fundamental shifts in the market, and global turmoil.

Blume warned, "The global car industry is in the midst of a massive crisis. And the Volkswagen Group is right in the thick of it. Geopolitics, trade barriers, regulation, weak markets and fierce competition are all taking their toll."

Christiane Benner, deputy chairwoman of VW's supervisory board and head of Germany's IG Metall union, told local outlet Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that Blume's plan to cut 50,000 jobs is a "hard provocation," adding that trust in management is severely "strained."

Meanwhile, Volkswagen is holding "concrete negotiations" with Chinese automakers about assembling their vehicles at German factories, Benner said. Such deals could help protect domestic jobs and improve plant utilization, though she cautioned that they would represent only a "complementary measure" rather than a comprehensive solution.

Talks aimed at securing the future of VW's Osnabrück plant are also progressing, according to Benner, who added that Qatar blocked a potential agreement involving Israeli defense contractor Rafael to convert a civilian production line to military production.

Whether the issue is the death of a industrial base, the Third World invasion of Europe, or disastrous green and energy policies that have sent energy prices through the roof, Brussels' terrible decisions are, as Nomura analyst Andrzej Szczepaniak described, "seeding political change" that will push the continent "toward more populism."

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 09:55

Alfalfa Sprouts Linked To Bacterial Infections In 15 US States

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

A total of 55 people have been infected with E. coli and Salmonella across 15 states in an outbreak linked to alfalfa sprouts, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

Fresh homegrown Alfalfa or Lucerne Medicago sativa sprouts in white bowl. Courtesy of the CDC

Of those 55 people, 46 were infected with Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, or STEC, seven with Salmonella, and two with both pathogens, according to the FDA's Aug. 21 update. Four people have been hospitalized, and no deaths have been reported.

Minnesota accounted for the largest number of infections, with 21 cases, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Wisconsin followed with 17 cases. Florida, North Carolina, North Dakota, and New York each reported two cases. Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Washington each reported one.

According to the CDC, illnesses began on May 31, with the most recent case beginning on Aug. 8.

State and local health officials have been interviewing sick people about the foods they ate during the week before becoming ill. Of the 37 people interviewed, 26 reported eating alfalfa sprouts.

Traceback investigations at grocery stores and restaurants identified alfalfa sprouts distributed by Minnesota-based Everything Sprouts LLC as a source of illnesses, according to the FDA.

On Wednesday, the FDA began an inspection at the company and collected product samples. Investigators are working to determine the source of contamination and whether other products or companies are connected to the outbreak.

Everything Sprouts said in an Aug. 21 statement that it was coordinating with the FDA and CDC to recall certain lots of alfalfa sprouts because of potential contamination with STEC and Salmonella.

The recall covers Everything Sprouts Alfalfa sprouts sold in 5-ounce plastic containers with lids and distributed from May 27 through Aug. 21. The products were shipped to retail grocery stores in Minnesota and Wisconsin as well as certain third-party distributors.

The company said federal and state agencies had notified it of reported illnesses. It also said it had tested its products daily during the outbreak and had not received a positive laboratory result.

Everything Sprouts said it was continuing to work with public-health officials to investigate the potential problem and would provide updates as more information became available.

The company also said that, as of its statement, it had received no direct reports of illnesses involving the recalled products.

According to Everything Sprouts, STEC and Salmonella infections can cause serious health problems. STEC infection can lead to acute diarrheal illness within several days of ingesting the bacteria.

Most people recover within about a week, according to the company, but people with weakened immune systems can experience more severe or prolonged illness and may develop complications requiring medical attention.

Salmonella infections can become especially serious in frail people, older adults, young children, and those with weakened immune systems.

Symptoms can include fever, vomiting, nausea, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, which can sometimes be bloody. In rare cases, Salmonella can enter the bloodstream and cause more serious complications, according to the company.

In addition to Everything Sprouts-brand alfalfa sprouts, the CDC linked the illnesses to the company's Calco-branded sprouts in an Aug. 21 food-safety alert.

The CDC advised people who bought the affected products not to eat them and instead throw them away or return them to the place of purchase. It also recommended cleaning items and surfaces that may have contacted the sprouts with a dishwasher or hot, soapy water.

The CDC advised people to contact a health care provider promptly if they develop warning signs including diarrhea accompanied by a fever above 102 degrees Fahrenheit, bloody diarrhea, vomiting severe enough that liquids cannot be kept down, diarrhea lasting more than two days without improvement, or signs of dehydration.

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 09:20

Taiwan Tech Insiders Warn Beijing's Germanium Squeeze Is Hitting Production

Nikkei Asia reports that China is restricting or delaying exports of germanium- and quartz-based materials to Taiwan, creating "painful supply-chain bottlenecks" across the island's key aerospace, semiconductor, and optical companies.

The supply disruptions reinforce the urgent need for the US and its allies to accelerate supply-chain decoupling and secure alternative sources of critical materials. Beijing's ability to weaponize shipments could prove devastating during a military conflict or allow China to slow Western semiconductor and AI infrastructure buildouts while its domestic AI companies and infrastructure projects close the gap.

"It's an industrywide issue. Many of my peers have encountered the same problem, and it could significantly extend lead times across our business," one executive in the optical industry told the Japanese outlet, requesting anonymity for fear of retaliation from Beijing.

For context, germanium's most critical uses are in defense optics and communications infrastructure, and it plays a significant, though largely indirect, role in the AI buildout through fiber networks, photonics, and data-center connectivity rather than the GPUs used in chip stacks.

Taiwanese manufacturers warned that prolonged customs reviews for germanium- and quartz-based materials began last year and that lead times continue to worsen, causing some suppliers to miss customer delivery schedules. Sources said one chip equipment manufacturer had to delay production on one chip line for months due to the supply squeeze and noted that sourcing materials outside China is extraordinarily difficult.

"The quality and precision for quartz is very strict for the chip industry, and currently we don't have an alternative source from China," one Taiwanese executive told the outlet.

"We have been told that some of our Chinese suppliers have been summoned by the authorities and questioned about their customers and shipments," said one of the sources. "We have already lost some orders because longer lead times for certain materials mean we can't meet our customers' delivery schedules."

Aerospace suppliers are also reporting disruptions involving Chinese magnets.

"We have found that key permanent magnets essential for making motors have faced some disruptions because of Chinese export controls, and it's not that easy to find cost-effective alternatives in other places," an executive with an aerospace supplier told the outlet.

China's weaponization of critical-material supply chains amid heightened tensions with Taiwan suggests that the supply-chain decoupling theme will only accelerate from here.

Last week, Piper Sandler initiated coverage of LightPath Technologies with an "Overweight" rating and a 12-month price target of $15, citing the defense supplier's proprietary BlackDiamond infrared glass, which completely "circumvents" the need for germanium amid "significant cost increases and scarcity stemming from recent Chinese export controls."

Clarke Jeffries, vice president and senior equity research analyst at Piper Sandler, specializes in industrial software and defense technology. In a note titled "BlackDiamonds Are Forever," Jeffries outlined the core value proposition underpinning LightPath's investment thesis:

Central to LightPath's value proposition is the exclusive license to BlackDiamond, a synthetic glass that circumvents significant cost increases & scarcity from recent Chinese export controls on germanium.

With an exclusive license, and now competing at cost parity (or below) to Germanium, we believe LightPath is poised to capture meaningful share in of IR and Multi-Spectral optics market as the technical advantages of the BlackDiamond technology scale to large diameter optics and have the opportunity to be designed into large upcoming defense programs.

Beijing's tightening grip on germanium, tungsten, and other critical-material export flows merely confirms that the supply-chain decoupling investment theme will remain intact for many years.

The US and its allies must secure alternative sources before China further weaponizes export controls, which could soon create operational bottlenecks across the defense, semiconductor, and AI-focused industries.

That is why our decoupling theme is moving further upstream. On Wednesday, we examined Almonty Industries as a potential alternative supplier of tungsten (read report).

Tyler Durden Sun, 08/23/2026 - 08:50