Aggregator

"Today, I’ll cast my first Senate vote since I took a bad fall back in June. I’m really looking forward to being back on the Senate floor and seeing my colleagues."

The "Summer House" star will be dancing to one of Houston's songs on "DWTS" tomorrow night.

The "Summer House" star will be dancing to one of Houston's songs on "DWTS" tomorrow night.

Clippers owner and executives are suspended, so who led the Kawhi Leonard trade?

Paramount Threatens California Exit That Could Cost State Billions

Paramount could pull nearly 58,000 jobs and $21 billion in annual economic activity out of California if the company follows through on a threat to relocate its headquarters and operations amid an antitrust fight over its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, according to a preliminary economic analysis from the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.'s (LAEDC) Institute for Applied Economics, which was obtained by Politico.

If no resolution is achieved, Paramount has threatened to begin moving its headquarters and thousands of jobs out of the state starting Oct. 1, 2026, with Georgia, Tennessee and Texas floated as possible destinations.

The threat traces back to a lawsuit that California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) and eleven other Democratic state attorneys general filed on July 13 to permanently block the Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery merger under the Clayton Act. Their complaint argued the combined company would reduce competition in wide-release theatrical films, in the market for anticipated top-grossing pictures, and in the licensing of basic cable channels.

The lawsuit came after the Justice Department had reached the opposite conclusion in June, closing its own investigation without filing suit and finding the deal unlikely to harm competition in streaming, linear television, or theatrical film production and distribution.

The LAEDC report makes it clear that California's economy would suffer huge losses if Paramount decided to move out of state. Apart from the 28,990 and 57,980 potential full-time jobs that would disappear, California would also see annual economic output decline somewhere between $10.6 billion and $21.2 billion. Annual state and local tax revenue would also drop by about $585 million.

This is, however, a worst-case scenario based on LAEDC assumptions, not a definite forecast, since Paramount does not publicly break down its operating expenses or employment by state.

Even the more conservative scenario still involves a heavy loss. Even a slower, partial retreat tied to merger-related ticking fees and financing costs totaling roughly $1.88 billion, spread over five years, could still result in the state losing 550 to 1,110 job-years each year and between $202.7 million and $405.4 million in annual economic output.

The merger agreement requires Paramount to pay additional amounts to Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders, called ticking fees, if the transaction is not completed by September 30. From October 1 onwards, the LAEDC sets the fees at about $7 million per day, so each week of legal proceedings becomes a separate charge. As a partial gesture to resolve the issue, Paramount has promised to make 30 theatrical releases each year from the combined company. This pledge the LAEDC believes could result in between 1,020 and 2,760 job-years and between $377.7 million and $1.01 billion in economic output throughout the state over a five-year period.

It's unclear whether this proposal will persuade Bonta's office.

For now, Bonta isn't backing down on his public messaging. "California is the fourth largest economy in the world and the best place to do business," his office said, adding, "Strong antitrust enforcement is essential so everyone can benefit from a vibrant economy."

"When companies create a monopoly and illegally use that power to get out of negotiating, that hurts our economy, it hurts Californians, it makes things more expensive, and it makes things worse," Bonta's office said.

Steve Hilton, the Republican candidate for governor, has made this dispute a campaign talking point, calling the lawsuit "totally politically motivated" last month and saying he would "use whatever power I have to discourage any litigation that would be destructive to California, including this one."

Hilton has also framed Paramount as one data point in a broader exodus. "There's always something, because the people in charge of California are just running this state into the ground," he said on Real America's News last month, adding that business owners tell him on the trail they're "hanging on till November" and will leave if the state's political direction doesn't change. "I think that we are heading for economic collapse in California," he said. He also predicted the recent trickle of departures "is going to turn into a stampede" without a course correction.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 18:00

Court Rejects DOE Order To Delay Michigan Coal Plant Retirement

By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

A federal appeals court on Friday vacated the Department of Energy’s emergency order requiring the owners of a coal-fired power plant in Michigan to delay its planned retirement, saying the move usurped state authority over generating resources.

“The federal government has, until now, issued stopgap generation orders in response only to transitory emergencies caused by war, extreme weather events, market manipulation, or unplanned, short-term unavailability of specific generation units,” the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit said in its ruling. 

Consumers Energy’s 1,420-MW, coal-fired J.H. Campbell power plant in West Olive, Mich. The U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on Sept, 11, 2026, that the U.S. Department of Energy overstepped its authority when it ordered Consumers to delay retiring the power plant

“It is the states — informed by federal, regional, and load-serving entities’ assessments of available supply and reliability needs — that bear the responsibility to plan for and avert reliability risks on an ongoing basis,” the court added, noting that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Midcontinent Independent System Operator had approved the plant’s retirement after extensive reviews.

The suit was brought by Earthjustice, which represented the Sierra Club and Urban Core Collective. Also, the Michigan attorney general argued the case for Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota. Other petitioners included the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michigan Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law and Policy Center, Vote Solar, the Ecology Center and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The court found that the DOE lacked the authority under the Federal Power Act’s section 202(c) to order Consumers Energy to run its majority-owned, 1,420-MW J.H. Campbell power plant past its May 31, 2025, retirement date.

Under section 202(c), an “emergency” means a grid reliability risk that calls for immediate action by DOE — a condition that wasn’t met in the case of the Campbell power plant, the court said.

The court said it was unpersuaded by DOE’s “sweeping conception” of its emergency authority under the FPA’s section 202(c). 

“The Department’s position would empower it to pick its preferred power sources in Michigan — or, presumably, any other state — and order them to operate without regard to the multiple procedural and substantive constraints built into state reliability planning processes,” the court said.

Section 202(c) gives the DOE a “limited backstop mechanism” to address certain electricity supply emergencies, the court said.

“Contrary to DOE’s position, ... the complexity and advance planning that go into states’ assurances of resource adequacy do not imply that DOE must have vast, top-down emergency power to pick its favorite generators to run at all costs,” the court said. “The Department’s reading of ‘emergency’ invites frequent federal interventions that are unsupported by the statute and threaten the stability of the energy market.”

The DOE justified its order keeping the Campbell plant online by citing “fragments” of two documents and a MISO presentation it said showed that the region faced an emergency, the court noted. 

The decision is among the first amid various legal challenges to DOE orders keeping fossil-fueled power plants from retiring to reach a court decision. Generally, the department has argued the plants needed to keep running due to the medium- to long-term potential for electric supply shortfalls.

Since the DOE issued its first 90-day order keeping the Campbell power plant from retiring, it has issued similar orders affecting six other power plants — all but one of which is coal-fired. DOE has reissued all the orders before they were set to expire.

Through June 30, the net cost of complying with the DOE emergency orders was $259 million, after applying MISO revenues of $239 million, Consumers said in a July 28 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“The court rebuked the Trump administration’s abuse of emergency powers,” Michael Lenoff, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a press release.

“The DOE needs to stay in its lane and use its emergency powers only in actual emergencies. Preventing the market-driven retirements of coal plants to advance a coal-friendly agenda is not a proper use of emergency powers.”

The DOE could appeal the court’s ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The Energy Department’s emergency orders, including at Campbell, prevented blackouts and likely saved hundreds of lives during peak capacity events this past year,” a DOE spokesperson said in an email.

The DOE’s emergency orders were “essential” for keeping the lights on during Winter Storm Fern in January, according to the spokesperson. At the peak of the bitter cold, coal-fired generation in affected regions increased 25% compared to the same time last year, and the Campbell plant operated at over 650 MW every day between Jan. 21 and Feb. 1, they said.

“The Department of Energy will continue to protect and defend energy security for all Americans,” the spokesperson said.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:40

Bitcoin Jumps As CLARITY Act Odds Surge In Prediction Markets

Bitcoin is sharply higher, ignoring the meltdown in gold and other dollar-sensitive assets, on a surge in prediction market optimism that Washington may finally pass a crypto market structure bill, with odds rising to multi-week highs on Monday and Polymarket.

Polymarket bettors put the chance that the Clarity Act will be signed into law this year at nearly 30% Monday morning, up from just 12% earlier in September. That’s the highest level since early August, according to the event contract’s dashboard.

As a reminder the Senate is scheduled to hold a crucial procedural cloture vote on the crypto-focused Clarity Act on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The bill requires 60 votes to advance.

Overnight, Senate Republicans released the "final" draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which they said incorporates "substantive changes" requested by Democrats, the Block reported. President Trump was also reported to have agreed to ethics restrictions in the bill that would limit crypto-related dealings by officials and their spouses.

Stablecoin rewards, previously a key sticking point in negotiations, also appear to have been addressed.

Under the latest draft, the Treasury secretary would have authority to impose a circuit-breaker on stablecoin rewards for up to 18 months after enactment, if stablecoins were deemed to be driving substantial deposit outflows from community banks.

Following the draft's release, market-implied odds of the bill passing this year rose from 22% to 30% on Polymarket.

Additionally, traders put the odds of passage before July 1 at 53%, versus 30% Thursday, after the contract briefly surged to 69%. The chance of legislation becoming law before April most recently stood at at 45%, roughly double Thursday's 23%.

Bessent helped with a post on X:

"I’ve said many times that the CLARITY Act is essential to ensuring America wins the global race for new technology.

That’s the reason Congress passed the GENIUS Act: to ensure that stablecoin infrastructure, a revolutionary financial technology, will be built in America..."

While markets clearly show traders see a clearer path for crypto legislation ahead of Tuesday's key procedural vote in the Senate, there's still plenty of road between a favorable vote and a presidential signature.

According to CoinDesk, Tuesday's Senate cloture vote requires 60 senators, forcing the measure to draw bipartisan support. Clearing that threshold would be an important political milestone, but it would not amount to final Senate passage. 

Lawmakers could still face a lengthy amendment process of the bill. Any changes would also have to be reconciled with the House before legislation could head to the president, while the congressional calendar adds another source of uncertainty.

The next move belongs to the Democrats, because this wasn't a negotiated package, one analyst said.

Jaret Sieberg, a financial policy analyst for TD Cowen, said the Democratic lawmakers may not see enough here to justify getting on board, so he maintained a 25% chance of Clarity Act passage on Monday.

"We are not convinced the updated ethics language Senate Republicans released last night is substantive enough for moderate Democrats," he wrote in a note to clients.

The problems for Democrats: President Trump would still be able to maintain his crypto investments, even if they're structured in a blind trust, so it doesn't sever him from the industry he has such an influence on. And the powers for state attorneys general to sue remain very narrow, with no direct actions possible against the president. Also, Trump would tout a yes vote as a major personal victory, Sieberg said, potentially carrying a political cost for the November elections.

On the positive side, Sieberg noted, the changes could give Democrats a little more political cover if they wanted to support the bill, and bankers may feel more comfortable with it because of the extra protections it gives their deposit accounts from customers running to stablecoins.

He said that because the administration hasn't yet offered Democrat nominations to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, those could be offered up to sweeten the deal in a final negotiation.

And while the odds of Clarity act passage have failed to rise above 50%, even the modest move observed was enough to push bitcoin up nearly $2000 to just shy of $80K, the highest since Friday's post-CPI "band aid" response.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:20

EPA Poised To Scrap Power Plant Carbon Standards

By Robin Lawrence, of UtilityDive

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally rescind carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants today, according to multiple media reports.

The repeal would complete the Trump administration’s elimination of climate policies enacted under the Obama and Biden administrations and could prevent future administrations from regulating greenhouse gases emissions from power plants, according to The New York Times.

Climate Mayors and C40 Cities are among the municipal and environmental groups that have opposed the repeal, which the EPA first proposed in June 2025. “GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to costly and detrimental fiscal and public health impacts for cities across the United States,” the groups, along with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, stated in an Aug. 7, 2025, letter to the EPA. 

The Mount Storm Power Station, a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, on July 13, 2026

The EPA has initiated rollbacks of greenhouse gas emissions standards since President Donald Trump took office. Environmental groups and local governments have filed multiple lawsuits attempting to halt the actions.

In September 2025, EPA proposed a rule to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires over 8,000 facilities and suppliers in the U.S. to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Twelve cities and counties joined a coalition of 24 states in a March lawsuit challenging the EPA’s repeal of its 2009 endangerment finding, the underpinning for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Also in March, a coalition of 21 states and local governments filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. That lawsuit also challenges EPA’s rollback of real-time continuous emissions monitoring at power plants, alleging it violates the Clean Air Act.

In their August 2025 comments opposing the EPA’s repeal of power plant greenhouse gas emissions standards, Climate Mayors, C40 and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School said that cities nationwide “rely on the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards to help protect them from costly and dangerous impacts to infrastructure and public health, and to augment their work to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

The most acute effects of greenhouse gas emissions are often felt in cities, the letter states. “Moreover, federal regulation of power sector GHG emissions not only reduces emissions from regulated power plants, but also has the indirect effect of reducing emissions from other sectors that use electricity, including the building and transportation sectors, which are the top two sources of GHG emissions in U.S. cities,” the groups state. 

EPA estimated last year that repealing emission guidelines and carbon capture requirements would save the power sector about $1.2 billion a year, and repealing 2024 amendments to mercury emissions standards would save power plants about $120 million a year.  

When it issued the standards in May 2024, EPA found that the regulations would deliver $370 billion in net benefits over two decades, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that EPA has an obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act,” Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said in an emailed statement Monday. “The power sector is the second-largest U.S. greenhouse gas emitter. Leaving this pollution unchecked ignores the Supreme Court, puts the public at risk, and flagrantly violates EPA’s legal responsibilities.”

The EPA has not responded to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:10

Hoskins was recently found temporarily in contempt by the Missouri's Supreme Court.

She quit the crash diets, added one shake and then finally lost the weight.

State Seizes Girl After Catholic Parents Refuse To Call Her A Boy

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A Massachusetts family has spent nearly two years fighting the state for custody of their daughter after a public school socially transitioned her behind their backs and child-welfare officials treated the parents' refusal to play along as the crime.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko, devout Catholics, say staff at Algonquin Regional High School began treating their daughter Sophie as a boy without telling them. In December 2024, when Sophie was 15, the Department of Children and Families removed her from the home because her parents would not recognize her as male.

Physical-abuse claims against Joseph were later deemed unfounded. That did not stop a permanent restraining order or DCF cutting off contact after the couple still would not use a male name and pronouns.

? OMG. In a terrifying case, these Catholic parents in Massachusetts had their daughter TAKEN AWAY by the state because they refused to let her transition and affirm her as a BOY

The school went behind their back to teach her gender ideology, and the counselor did it without... pic.twitter.com/HC4kGYPdMD

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2026

Sophie is now 17. The family says the state housed her in a boys' dormitory, denied her Sunday Mass, and put her on birth control and psychiatric drugs. Officials are now seeking court approval for high-dose testosterone.

The Kutzkos want her home and a full psychological evaluation first. Their attorney, Vernadette Broyles, is also pressing Congress so that a parent's refusal to medically or socially transition a child is never branded "child abuse."

The pattern is not unique to one Massachusetts high school. In Ludlow, parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri alleged Baird Middle School socially transitioned their children in secret, used opposite-sex names and pronouns at school, and used legal names when speaking to mom and dad. The First Circuit sided with the district. The Supreme Court declined the case in April 2026.

IDENTITY CRISIS: Parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri claim their child was encouraged by Ludlow Public School officials to adopt a new name and different gendered pronouns. https://t.co/oo5jLS0ifw pic.twitter.com/EBUeyZ1q8n

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2022

That pipeline - school secrecy, then state power - is the same one Trump's Justice Department has been chasing in Illinois. In May, the DOJ opened investigations into 36 Illinois districts accused of helping children change genders without telling parents and of pushing sexual-orientation and gender ideology without opt-out notices.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said: "This Department of Justice is determined to put an end to local school authorities keeping parents in the dark about how sexuality and gender ideology are being pushed in classrooms." She added: "Supreme Court precedent leaves no doubt: parents have the fundamental right and primary authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children."

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker called the probe "a sham aimed at punishing states President Trump does not like."

Illinois Democrats had already shown where they wanted the law to go. House Bill 4876 would have redefined an "abused child" to include a minor denied "gender-affirming services" - puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery - and allowed DCFS to take children from parents who objected. Doctors who treated minors without parental consent would have been shielded from liability.

Shannon Adcock of Awake Illinois warned: "In Illinois, parents who are considered child abusers can lose custody of their children if in this case they do not affirm transgender drugs, surgical procedures such as penis and breast removal." She added: "If a minor opts for this, and you as a parent deny that, that means that you are considered an abuser of a child."

Child abuse in Illinois can carry a $25,000 fine and 15 years in prison. On Joe Rogan's podcast, Dr. Phil McGraw said of the medical associations backing youth transition: "I have never seen those organisations sign off on anything with less information as to whether or not it does long-term harm of anything in my life. And when I ask about that, when I bring that up, then they immediately label you as transphobic."

Oregon shows what happens when the policy is affirmation-first and parental consent is optional. A study of insurance records found Oregon minors far more likely than the national average to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and put on cross-sex hormones.

Roughly 1 in 240 girls and 1 in 630 boys received those hormones by age 17 - about three times the national rate for girls and twice for boys, higher still at ages 14 and 15. Oregon adopted WPATH standards, expanded Medicaid coverage with little or no age floor, and passed shield laws letting 15-year-olds consent without parental notification.

There was no matching collapse in youth suicide to justify the surge. The White House under Trump has called changing a minor's gender "child abuse" and "medical malpractice." CMS has since moved to cut federal Medicaid and CHIP dollars for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related surgeries for minors.

Over the pond in the UK, a draft ban on "conversion practices" threatens parents, teachers, and doctors with unlimited fines and five years in prison. Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey said: "Conversion practices are driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful and can be forcibly changed. No-one should face abuse just because of who they are."

Critics say ordinary parental caution - telling a daughter she is a girl, or citing the Cass Review's finding that the evidence for puberty blockers is "remarkably weak" - could be recast as a crime. Official school guidance still allows social transition for children as young as four.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters said schools have "indoctrinated children" for a decade and that officials "actually need to de-radicalise a whole generation of teachers." Maya Forstater called the idea that a child can start school as a girl and leave as a boy "a dangerous fairytale."

Taxpayer-funded groups have written the playbook. LGBT Youth Scotland, which has taken nearly £1 million a year in public money, advised Scottish schools that "it is best to not disclose information to parents or carers without the young person's permission." Coming-out templates taught children how to change their name at school. Teachers were told not to "deny their identity."

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: "The idea that a teacher can just decide on the spot, the first time a kid speaks to them about gender confusion, to socially transition them by using whatever pronouns or name the child wants, is clearly wrong." He added: "The idea that they can try to keep their parents - and therefore their doctors - out of the decision is not just wrong, it is unprofessional."

The Kutzkos are still in court. A school started a secret social transition. The state took the girl, isolated her from her faith, and now wants to inject testosterone. That is not safeguarding. It is the state substituting itself for the family.

Any district that hides name and pronoun changes from parents should lose federal dollars until the policy is reversed. Parents - not counselors, not DCF, not activist charities - direct the upbringing of their children.

* * *

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:00

Jen Terry stopped by the Page Six studio to catch up with “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts Danny Murphy and Evan Real about which remaining “Love Island” season 8 couples will be endgame. So take a sip of Pom Wonderful Antioxidant Super Teas, our sponsor, as this bombshell spills it all on her co-stars Melanie Moreno and...

Jen Terry stopped by the Page Six studio to catch up with “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts Danny Murphy and Evan Real about which remaining “Love Island” season 8 couples will be endgame. So take a sip of Pom Wonderful Antioxidant Super Teas, our sponsor, as this bombshell spills it all on her co-stars Melanie Moreno and...

The Rams were rocked by the news that their star acquisition will undergo surgery.

A top psychologist told The Post that Gen Z has been particularly impacted by the lack of social engagement.

Financing college is a big decision.

The force of the July 18th blast shattered windows and set off car alarms 100 feet away.

Trading Kawhi Leonard did more than remove the Clippers’ best player. It eliminated their last convincing claim to having a franchise centerpiece. That loss feels especially severe after the NBA punished the Clippers’ salary-cap violations with a $30 million fine, leadership suspensions and the forfeiture of five first-round picks. While Brandon Ingram, Gradey Dick and...

The Knicks star shared a surprisingly affordable grooming tip.

The Knicks star shared a surprisingly affordable grooming tip.