Zero Rss

US Troops Leak New Iran War Photos Of Gulf Bases: 'Major Damage Hidden From American Public'

As we've been documenting, it is clear that major damage has yet to be communicated to the American public regarding Iran's major retaliation on US bases in the Gulf and Mideast since the start of Trump's Operation Epic Fury. 

During the same week that a long awaited Pentagon/Department of War Inspector General's report was released covering the first four months of the Iran War, new leaked photographs have emerged of never-before-seen base damage.

"New photos obtained exclusively by CBS News reveal for the first time the widespread damage and destruction of buildings and vehicles at multiple U.S. positions across the Middle East, as a result of Iranian missile and drone attacks," according to a bombshell Tuesday CBS report. Below is from Prince Sultan AFB, Saudi Arabia:

Source: CBS

The outlet describes that the photos have been submitted by US service members under strict secrecy and anonymity - given the Pentagon has sought to enforce a crackdown on troops sharing the extent of damage, and amid orders aimed at maintaining operational security. But critics say the Pentagon and Trump administration are engaged in a cover-up and propaganda. 

"This is major damage to our bases that hasn't been communicated to the American public," an actively deployed unnamed service member said to CBS News.

The service member added: "We're standing there with our eyes closed getting punched in the face."

Below is from Camp Arifjan, Kuwait:

Source CBS

Recent Iranian attacks on bases in Jordan have continued intermittently over the past weeks, and some pundits have warned that American personnel that continue to be stationed there are essentially sitting ducks.

The ballistic missile volleys from Iran have only gotten bigger, such as the last major attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan during the night of September 8-9.

On Monday the newly released Pentagon Inspector General's report said that "hundreds" of buildings and structures at US bases have been destroyed...

“Iranian strikes damaged and destroyed hundreds of buildings and structures at U.S. bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, and Jordan during the conflict.”

More leaked images via CBS:

It was not just bases that got directly hit, and mainly within merely the opening weeks of Operation Epic Fury - but even consulates, embassies, and intelligence buildings have been targeted and suffered damage.

"U.S. diplomatic facilities in four countries—Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates—suffered physical damage from Iranian strikes," the Pentagon has conceded.

American service members in Saudi are leaking photos of bases destroyed by Iranian strikes that the Pentagon is trying to cover up pic.twitter.com/glyqOKBWwA

— The Gulag (@WelcomeTheGulag) September 15, 2026

According to prior analysis from Amerikanets: "After destroying much of the radar network protecting regional US Axis bases in the previous hot phase of the war, Iranian planners have prioritized targeting fuel storage, drone hangers, refueling tankers, and barracks."

The same analysis concluded: "The American response has been to pull assets back ever further from Iran, to bases in Israel and Jordan. We’ll call this process debasification. Iran’s debasification strategy takes advantage of the inherent asymmetry between the vastly different force structure and capabilities of Iranian rocket forces and US Axis air forces."

See the full photo set here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 20:55

"I Like Them": Trump Weighs In On Flock Surveillance Cameras

You know those Flock surveillance cameras everyone hates? Trump just came out in favor of them. 

A Flock camera monitors traffic in Quincy, Massachusetts. (Greg Derr/Patriot Ledger/USA Today Network/Reuters Connect)

Speaking with reporters on Sunday on Air Force One en route to Joint Base Andrews, Trump endorsed the AI-powered mass surveillance tool. 

"Speaking of [AI], Flock cameras. You haven’t talked a lot about these Flock cameras. A lot of law enforcement say they really help them. Would you be willing to back that?" a reporter asked Trump. 

"No, I sort of like them because of that, because of law enforcement. But some people don’t. They think it’s an infringement," Trump replied, adding "I like them." 

Trump previously said in August that he would make up his mind regarding Flock cameras "over the next couple of weeks," telling the DCNF "You have pros and cons, right? It’s being studied right now." 

As the Epoch Times notes further, in recent months, multiple cities across the United States have removed their Flock cameras, including Tempe, Arizona; Bellingham, Massachusetts; Cave Creek, Arizona; and multiple counties in Texas.

Earlier this month, the Dallas Police Department said the agency would shut down hundreds of Flock cameras in the coming days in response to a pause in funding.

Florida’s Department of Transportation, meanwhile, said in a memo that it would end its use of license-plate reading cameras, including those made by Flock.

More than 100 jurisdictions have canceled their contracts with Flock and other automated license plate reader providers, according to a database from the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm that says it aims to end government abuse of power.

Flock CEO Garrett Langley has pushed back against the growing concerns about the cameras, saying that people should be worried about their privacy but added that the license plate-reading cameras can be used to promote safety.

“I value my privacy, my family values their privacy, my employees value their privacy, but what we’re talking about is safety as well,” he told Fox News in August. “When people talk about just one of these, privacy or safety, they’re prioritizing the wrong thing.”

“And what we have to prioritize as a country is compromise—when I think about legislation that calls for an outright ban, that’s like banning vehicles,” he said.

The issue has also become a midterm campaign target and has drawn scrutiny in Congress.

In Congress, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) said he launched a probe into Flock cameras and demanded that Langley provide his office answers on safeguards to protect Americans’ data.

Earlier this year, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) introduced a measure in the House of Representatives, the “Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act,” that would bar federal agencies from using automated surveillance systems to track, record, and identify people. That includes automated license plate-reading systems like Flock.

Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Pennsylvania governor seeking reelection and considered a potential contender for the White House in 2028, said in late August that he would support a statewide ban. In early September, his Republican opponent, Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity, said in a statement, “Flock cameras are an intrusive invasion of privacy and they should be banned.”

Zachary Stieber and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 20:30

Libya Threatens Force Majeure As Oil Guards Shut Fields

By Julianne Geiger, of OilPrice.com

Libya’s National Oil Corporation is threatening to declare force majeure after members of the security force assigned to protect the country’s oil infrastructure shut a pipeline valve and halted production at two fields.

Production has stopped completely at the Hamada and Tahara oilfields and at a pumping station after members of the Petroleum Facilities Guard closed a valve on the main Hamada-Zawiya crude pipeline, NOC said Tuesday.

The shutdown could spread.

The Petroleum Facilities Guard said it would impose partial production cuts for one week at several additional fields, including Wafa, Al-Khamsa and El Feel. A full shutdown would follow if its demands are not met.

The Guard wants to be transferred financially and administratively from Libya’s defense ministry to the National Oil Corporation and has called for a timetable to complete the move.

NOC said it could declare force majeure if the closed valve is not reopened or if similar shutdowns hit other oilfields.

Libya has been here before. Political groups, armed factions and workers have repeatedly used oilfields, pipelines and terminals as leverage since the 2011 uprising that toppled Muammar Gaddafi.

The latest disruption lands just as Libya is trying to push production much higher.

Output has climbed to roughly 1.4 million barrels per day, its highest level in more than a decade. NOC is targeting 1.6 million bpd by the end of 2026 and 2 million bpd by the early 2030s.

Getting there could require $36 billion to $40 billion in foreign investment, according to NOC Chairman Masoud Suleman.

International companies have already started moving back in. Libya signed exploration and production-sharing agreements this year with Repsol, Turkish Petroleum, Eni, QatarEnergy and MOL following its first major licensing round in 17 years. BP, Shell, Exxon and Chevron have also been pursuing a return.

NOC received a $2 billion allocation under Libya’s 2026 budget to support its production plans.

The problem is much older than the investment push: fields capable of producing more oil are still vulnerable to whoever controls the valve.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 20:05

Stay-At-Home Subsidies Won't Produce A Baby Boom

Authored by Thomas Savidge via The Daily Economy,

Over Labor Day weekend, amidst Americans' attempts to enjoy the waning days of summer, The New York Times published an article titled "Trump Officials Draft Plan to Pay At-Home Parents, Using Funds for Working Ones." Per the story, the administration's proposal would use funds from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which subsidizes daycare for working parents, to pay stay-at-home parents for their at-home childcare.

My family could potentially qualify for the payment, but my wife and I understand that this program could jeopardize our children's future. While families may find these cash transfers helpful in the short-term, the cost of these transfers could exacerbate the US's already fiscally unstable situation.

What This Proposal Could Look Like

According to the Times article, the Trump administration is drafting a rule that would let some married households use CCDF funds to support a parent caring for their child at home. The other spouse would have to work at least 35 hours per week, and benefits would still be income-limited. Eligibility and payment terms would depend on final policy.

The CCDF currently funds "center-based childcare providers" (daycares) as well as family childcare providers and in-home childcare, so long as these providers are licensed and meet state and local requirements applicable for professional caregivers. The proposed change would make a qualifying child's own parent eligible to receive the same support.

Outside of these scant details, little is known about the proposal. A similar policy was, however, proposed in a Heritage Foundation report last January. Instead of using CCDF funds, the report proposes a separate Home Childcare Equalization credit. The hypothetical tax credit would add up to $2,000 per eligible child under five to Heritage's proposed Family and Marriage credit. Marriage and earned income would be required, and benefits received through the CCDF (as well as the child and dependent care tax credit) would reduce the proposed credits dollar for dollar.

Heritage estimates that its two credits together would cost about $188.7 billion over ten years, and proposes other spending cuts to offset part of the cost. The new proposal will have its own budget consequences. Redirecting existing funds and creating additional benefits require different fiscal assessments.

Greater Parental Choice, But Minimal Impact On Fertility

Care provided by a parent has an economic cost even when no bill arrives. When one parent stays home, that parent likely gives up earnings as well as career advancement. For most, the trade-off is worthwhile. Interviews of highly educated mothers who choose to be stay-at-home parents to many children found these women "see maternity as a high-risk and high-reward endeavor, an ambitious-but-potentially-thrilling life project." Furthermore, research on mothers' wellbeing strengthens the case for parental choice. A study of more than 2,000 mothers linked better wellbeing to employment arrangements that matched mothers' preferences. A separate longitudinal study found elevated depressive symptoms among unemployed mothers only when they wanted paid work. Offering greater choice for parents among existing funds may provide a silver lining: parents will be better able to pursue the career-family dynamic that best suits their needs and goals.

That silver lining, however, must be taken into context. While not stated explicitly, this CCDF proposal is part of the administration's broader efforts to combat declining birthrates. In May, the White House grouped support for stay-at-home parents with fertility benefits, the Child Tax Credits, and Trump Accounts. An IVF announcement last February explicitly cited declining fertility and the goal of "more babies and expanding American families." That broader demographic ambition makes the likely impact on fertility relevant, even if the forthcoming CCDF proposal does not mention it.

Claims that this change (or other fiscal stimulus programs) can usher in a baby boom deserve skepticism. An OECD review finds that cash benefits and tax incentives generally produce modest, sometimes temporary fertility increases. As my colleague Jeff Degner and I noted last January, the Heritage report rightfully admits: "While other nations have tried to reverse declining birthrates through financially generous family policies, none has succeeded in restoring fertility to replacement levels. This demonstrates that government spending alone does not ensure demographic success."

The evidence does not establish whether this proposal would increase fertility. Even if it did produce a temporary increase in births, that could partly reflect families having children sooner without increasing their eventual family size.

Greater choice can be assessed on its own merits; lawmakers should not count on a large fertility response to justify the expense.

The Best Inheritance? Fiscal Discipline And Prosperity

Broader eligibility does not automatically require more federal spending, but, with a fixed budget, more applicants could mean greater competition for smaller benefits. Families excluded from parental care payments could press for inclusion, while existing recipients seek protection from funding reductions. Lawmakers often find it easier to increase spending than to choose among competing claims.

Funding decisions about this proposal take place against a federal debt burden that has already passed $40 trillion. In its February outlook, the Congressional Budget Office projected that debt held by the public would rise from 101 percent of gross domestic product in 2026 to 120 percent by 2036. Existing commitments already put borrowing costs on an unsustainable path.

Persistent borrowing can absorb savings that would otherwise finance private investment, weakening the growth that supports future wages. CBO's analysis of delayed debt stabilization finds that waiting to adjust increases the eventual shock and imposes greater burdens on younger generations. Those consequences belong in any discussion of helping children.

What really matters for family stability is sustained spending restraint that reduces deficits and makes room for lasting tax relief. Parents, my wife and I included, could keep more of what we earn and decide how to use it. Fiscal discipline must accompany the promises of lower taxes. Additionally, tackling inflation, the most corrosive anti-family force of all, can help make life more affordable.

Any CCDF reform should explain its funding limit and provide a workable transition for current recipients. Those standards should apply to the benefits my household may receive as firmly as to programs serving other Americans.

My wife and I would rather Washington make difficult spending choices while we can help bear the adjustment. Our children will live with the consequences of our choices now long after any parental care payments end. Lasting prosperity is the inheritance most worthy of preserving.

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

Largest US Power Grid Faces Dire Crisis By 2030 If Data Center Load Growth Continues

By 2030, the PJM Interconnection, the largest US electrical grid in the US serving 67 million people in 13 northeast states, is likely to face a “loss of load expectation,” or LOLE -  a key reliability metric used by power system planners to measure the expected number of hours or days per year that a power grid's electricity generation will fail to meet customer demand - between six and 100 times worse than the grid operator’s planning criterion, mainly due to the addition of large-load data centers, according to a study commissioned by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

The PUC and the firms that produced the report - Synapse Energy Economics, Mondre Energy and Aspen Technologies - characterized it as an independent analysis aimed at developing load projections and evaluating resource adequacy under a set of likely possible futures, according to UtillityDive.

In models covering 2027 through 2030, both a reference scenario and a high-load, low-supply scenario show PJM’s planning criteria for resource adequacy not being met. Only under a scenario with no new data centers is the region able to meet PJM’s target LOLE of 0.1, the report said.

PJM’s standard is designed to limit potential electricity shortages “to approximately one event every 10 years,” said a PUC release about the report. 

In the study’s reference scenario, which relies on PJM’s 2026 load forecast, the modeled 2030 LOLE is 0.59, “or nearly six times worse than the PJM planning criterion,” it said.

In a “worst-case future” of higher-than-expected load additions and constrained resource deployment, the modeled LOLE is 13.20 — “over 100 times worse than PJM’s planning criterion,” indicating an expectation of “more than 13 days with loss of load events per year.”

“As in the Reference scenario, these reliability issues are largely due to surging data center additions,” the study said.

“This analysis sends a clear warning: electricity demand and supply are moving out of balance, and the status quo is not sustainable,” PUC Chairman Steve DeFrank said in a statement. “We need urgent action at PJM and a broader Pennsylvania energy strategy that makes sure our supply of electricity keeps pace with demand.”

PJM, in a statement to CBS affiliate WJAC, acknowledged that new data center loads are growing faster than supply.

“PJM has taken a number of actions to both increase electricity supply and manage new demand in line with the Ratepayer Protection Pledge taken by data center developers to shield residential customers and other ratepayers from bearing reliability risks or cost increases associated with data center development,” said Jeff Shields, PJM’s senior manager of external communications.

The reference scenario anticipates Pennsylvania remaining a net energy exporter, but sees its exports “decrease from about 91 TWh in 2025 to about 69 TWh by 2035 and 38 TWh by 2040,” the report said.

In the high-load, low-supply scenario, Pennsylvania becomes a net importer of 5 TWh by 2040. 

An aerial view of the construction of an Amazon Web Services data center on Aug. 26, 2026, in Sterling, Va, located in the PJM Interconnection, the largest grid in the U.S. and an epicenter of data center construction

“Because this scenario has a large amount of unmet load in 2031 and later years, it is likely that some amount of this 2035 and 2040 load will be unmet, as there will not be enough regional generation to meet PJM-wide load requirements,” the report says.

Last month, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, D, issued an executive order that the state will offer preferential permitting to data center projects with peak demand of more than 25 MW if they commit to certain requirements, including sourcing their electricity from new power supplies.

The PUC also voted unanimously Thursday to approve two motions concerning data center development and ratemaking. One of the motions directs PUC staff to propose updates to the state’s rules for emergency curtailment, and to organize a technical conference on cost allocation for data centers.

The report notes that PJM and the U.S. Department of Energy “have implemented several initiatives, policies, and programs to address growing concerns about PJM’s resource adequacy,” including interconnection queue reform and reliability backstop procurement. 

“PJM and its stakeholders are also currently discussing additional initiatives such as load forecasting improvements,” the report said. “DOE has also committed to keeping some coal-fired power plants online beyond their retirement date, in an effort to maintain resource supply in the region.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 18:50

Board Votes To Shut Down Kennedy Center

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The board of the Kennedy Center voted Sept. 15 to close the arts facility “immediately” for safety reasons so rehabilitation work may be performed on the building, President Donald Trump said.

Workers outside The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts in Washingotn after they updated the signage in honor of President Donald Trump on Dec. 19, 2025. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

Trump made the announcement on Truth Social hours after a federal judge blocked the board from putting Trump’s name on the building’s facade or renaming its grounds in his honor.

U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled that the plan to add inscriptions honoring the current president would violate an existing injunction and the 1964 law that made the cultural center a memorial to the late President John F. Kennedy, which only Congress may alter.

The judge said that in 1983, Congress amended the 1964 law to ensure that “no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorials shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.”

Trump said the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking an expedited appeal of Cooper’s new ruling.

He said the closing of the center would happen “immediately,” but the rehabilitation project, which he described as “a very large and complex job,” cannot get underway until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issues a ruling “on the Board’s approved name.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 18:25

Dollar General CEO Warns Even "Upper-Middle Acting Like Lower-Income" Amid Fuel Crisis

Speaking at Goldman Sachs' 33rd Annual Global Retailing Conference on Tuesday morning, Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos offered a downbeat assessment of its customer base, warning that financial stress is spreading up the income ladder to middle- and upper-middle-income households. 

Years of elevated prices for everyday goods, compounded by gasoline prices above $4 a gallon nationally and $6 a gallon for diesel, are certaintly reshaping consumer habits across income cohorts. Vasos said that even customers earning $100,000 or more, whom Dollar General classifies as higher income, are increasingly under stress. 

Vasos explained:

And we've always said here at Dollar General for our core customer that any time that gas prices get anywhere close to four and then crests $4 a gallon, the customer changes their their shopping behavior, stays closer to home normally shops more often, but buys less on each occasion.

And that's exactly what the core customer is faring. But the interesting thing with this economy, because of the other sustained headwinds of inflation over the years that have passed, even that middle to upper middle is acting more like a lower income shopper these days. And they had that same characteristic. And then high income for us is that that $100,000 plus crowd.

The CEO of Dollar General, which has more than 21,000 stores nationwide, offers a real-time snapshot of consumer spending patterns and sentiment.

On Monday, Jefferies food analyst Scott Marks also flagged new pressure on convenience store customers as gasoline and diesel prices soared in August.

All of this highlights the Trump administration's urgent search for energy price relief ahead of the midterms. Export restrictions on diesel entered the conversation earlier today with Senate Majority Leader John Thune. The administration is also considering measures to increase U.S. refining capacity (yet capacity is at 98%). Whether Trump officials will suspend federal fuel taxes remains to be seen.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 18:00

A Stunning Case In The Making? The Supreme Court Orders New York To Respond In Second Amendment Case

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

One of the cases that I have been following as we approach the October term of the Supreme Court is Calce v. New York, a case challenging New York's ban on stun guns. While it is important not to overplay the significance of the order, some justices clearly want to hear more on the case before deciding whether to grant a writ of certiorari for review. New York City was just ordered to file a response to the petition. With the two other major Second Amendment cases on the docket, a review in Calce could be one of the most impactful Second Amendment terms in decades.

Calce is a challenge brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs against New York City's ban on stun guns. They argue that "electronic arms" like stun guns and lasers are protected under the Second Amendment. The only difference is that, rather than a projectile, such weapons "work by producing electrical pulses that make the target's muscles spasm, and thus quickly but temporarily disable him."

Notably, nine years ago, the Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit that challenged a similar ban. The Court rejected the logic of the First Circuit, which held that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment's enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment "extends... to... arms... that were not in existence at the time of the founding." It also rejected two other rationales.

Massachusetts responded to the loss by changing its law. In so doing, Massachusetts shows a modicum of strategic sense to avoid another likely loss. However, New York City (as usual) was undeterred.

Notably, the district court judge and the Second Circuit upheld the ban on the ground that the challengers failed to "provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use." That seems strikingly close to Caetano.

Calce could clarify not only the "common use" element but also the burden on challengers in such cases. The Second Circuit seems to have departed from the guidance of last year's decision in Wolford v. Lopez, rejecting Hawaii's "Vampire law" limiting areas where lawful weapons could be carried in the state without prior approval.

New York City must now respond by October 8, and the Court could decide on review at the October 15 conference.

If granted, the case would join an already weighty Second Amendment docket. The Court will be hearing arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Both cases will address the move in various blue states to ban AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons, including the popular Glock 9mm. The addition of Calce would make this a formidable Second Amendment term.

These cases also show how the same blue jurisdictions continue to feed the Court with Second Amendment cases that will likely only reinforce the rights that they are seeking to limit. I have previously written how New York, D.C., and Chicago are examples of Democratic cities that routinely commit lasting self-inflicted wounds to gun control efforts with poorly conceived and poorly drafted measures.

Calce has the makings of a truly stunning Second Amendment case in extending protections to electronic arms.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 17:40

AI Just Became A Massive Midterm Election Issue

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Artificial intelligence is about to become one of the most consequential issues in the 2026 midterm elections.

Maybe not immigration-level consequential or inflation-level consequential. But over the next two months, I think Americans are going to hear a lot more about a question that, until very recently, mostly belonged to Silicon Valley and a relatively small group of researchers: should the United States government force the development of frontier AI to slow down?

That question exploded into the political mainstream today. My take is that we may only get one chance to stop AI before it gets out of control, so let’s make sure we do it. President Trump spent Monday rejecting these types of growing warnings, calling the idea that AI could eventually escape human control a “HOAX” and comparing those concerns to what he regards as previous political hoaxes.

“I am the Hoax Buster, and I’m right now breaking another Hoax — That AI is going to take over, consume, and destroy the World,” Trump wrote.

His position is that America needs to develop AI as quickly as possible, excessive regulation risks handing the technological advantage to China, and Washington shouldn’t stand in the industry’s way. Trump went so far as to call AI and data centers potentially “the Greatest Economic Development Engine in History,” bigger than oil, gold, diamonds or even the internet. His administration has also favored voluntary government evaluation procedures for certain frontier models rather than mandatory licensing or preclearance.

Later in the day on Monday, Trump’s comic book nemesis Kamala Harris took almost precisely the opposite position. “The frontier of artificial intelligence is advancing at an alarming speed,” Harris said, calling for Congress to urgently pass legislation creating a new federal entity responsible for oversight and independent testing of advanced AI. She also called for the United States to pursue an international agreement, including with China, designed to establish safety standards and limit the speed of AI development.

And there, in a single day, is the outline of what could become a major midterm debate: accelerate versus slow down, beat China at virtually any cost versus coordinate internationally to establish limits, and keep Washington largely out of the way versus create a new federal regulator overseeing frontier AI.

And the issue is unusually consequential because the stakes aren’t confined to politics. They extend directly into the stock market, as I wrote about days ago in my piece Congress Could Kill AI Stocks Before AI Kills Us.

My argument was simple: virtually the entire AI investment boom rests on an assumption of continued rapid development. Hundreds of billions of dollars in expected spending on chips, data centers, electricity, networking equipment and infrastructure are ultimately downstream from that assumption. Slow the technology down and Wall Street eventually has to slow some of those assumptions down with it.

Monday offered a glimpse of that possibility. AI-linked stocks fell after some of the industry’s most important executives began publicly supporting a slower pace of frontier development. Nvidia fell about 3%, AMD roughly 4%, and several other AI-related names suffered considerably larger declines. Investors suddenly had to contemplate something that has barely been incorporated into the AI bull case: what happens if the constraint on AI isn’t chips, electricity or capital, but the federal government?

Which brings me to Trump. My suspicion is that Trump would say almost anything necessary to keep the stock market and the AI investment boom moving higher. That’s my interpretation, not something I can prove, but it isn’t difficult to understand why a president would be reluctant to embrace a policy that could potentially kneecap one of the largest capital-investment booms in the country…and his favorite political scorecard.

What is harder for me to accept is the idea that Trump somehow understands the technological risks better than the people actually building these systems. Elon Musk, Sam Altman and Dario Amodei have now all publicly supported slowing or “pacing” frontier AI development.

Whether it was a PR stunt this weekend or not is moot at this point. These are people running organizations developing some of the most advanced AI systems on Earth, with access to information about their capabilities that almost nobody outside those laboratories possesses.

Trump, by contrast, is effectively telling them that the danger they’re warning about is a hoax. That creates the somewhat ironic spectacle of Trump finding himself on the opposite side of an AI safety debate from Elon Musk, along with Altman, Amodei and other leaders of the industry. Whatever you think of those people, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to take seriously the possibility that they understand the capabilities and risks of the technology they’re actually building better than politicians do.

🔥 85% OFF FOREVER IF YOU SUBSCRIBE TODAY: I am again offering an 85% discount to anyone that wants to become a Fringe Finance annual subscriber today. It’s a discount you can keep and stays applied for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber: Get 85% off forever

There are legitimate arguments on Trump’s side. Regulation could entrench today’s largest AI companies, crush smaller competitors, slow beneficial innovation and potentially give China a strategic advantage. There is also an obvious incentive problem when the largest companies in an industry ask Washington to regulate an industry they already dominate. Those aren’t trivial objections, and Trump is right to raise them. But neither are the warnings coming from the laboratories themselves.

And that is why I think AI is suddenly positioned to become a major political football heading into November. The debate is no longer theoretical. One side of American politics is beginning to argue that frontier AI is moving fast enough to require federal intervention. Trump is arguing that slowing it down could sacrifice America’s economic and strategic advantage. Meanwhile, some of the people actually building the technology are warning that some form of slowdown may be necessary.

For investors, the implications could be enormous. The market has spent the last several years pricing an extraordinary amount of future AI growth into semiconductors, utilities, data centers, networking companies and Big Tech. Very little of that valuation framework appears designed for a world in which Washington deliberately steps on the brakes. You don’t need Congress to ban AI for the numbers to change. You simply need development timelines to stretch, testing requirements to increase, liability risks to rise or hyperscalers to conclude that they don’t need to spend quite as urgently as Wall Street currently assumes.

I wrote several days ago that AI regulation could arrive much faster than investors expect and potentially become a catalyst for a market crash. After today, I think that possibility deserves considerably more attention.

AI regulation isn’t just becoming a technology issue anymore. It is becoming an election issue, and with trillions of dollars in market value now tied directly or indirectly to the assumption that AI development continues at breakneck speed, what Washington decides to do about it could become a stock market issue very quickly thereafter.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. 

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 17:00

Bolsonaro, Lula Neck-And-Neck As Brazil Markets Bet On Rightward Shift

Brazil's October 4 general election is around the corner and is already sparking a rally in local markets, with a presidential runoff expected on October 25.

Right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro is statistically tied with socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in potential runoff scenarios.

"Brazilian elections could not be more uncertain and competitive, as recent polls demonstrate. Voting intentions now show right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro technically tied with current President Lula in a potential second-round runoff. This political shift comes as the country witnesses some of its most intense institutional noise, centered on the Supreme Court (STF) and the Banco Master case. The next important event around these developments will be the extraordinary Supreme Court session," Goldman analysts wrote in a note on Monday. 

The latest Quaest survey released on Monday showed Bolsonaro at 42% and Lula at 40%, within the poll's two-percentage-point margin of error. A separate BTG/Nexus survey put Lula at 47% against Bolsonaro's 46%, highlighting how tight the race remains.

Last Thursday, Polymarket showed Bolsonaro overtaking Lula, with that lead maintained as of Tuesday morning. Bolsonaro's odds of winning currently stand at 52%, while Lula's are around 45%.

Brazilian stocks have rebounded alongside rising Polymarket bets on a Bolsonaro victory. 

The tight presidential election race comes amid a deepening Supreme Court crisis over Banco Master that has impacted Lula. Later today an extraordinary session will be held to consider whether to authorize an investigation into Justice Alexandre de Moraes over alleged ties to banker Daniel Vorcaro. Moraes denies wrongdoing and has described the allegations as politically motivated.

For markets, the one development is the resilience of Brazilian assets against a difficult macro environment. The rally is consistent with traders pricing in that a new government could produce a different fiscal and economic-policy direction. 

Goldman analysts outlined the Brazil rally in charts:

However, Deutsche Bank analysts believe that the next administration, whoever leads it, will be forced to address the fiscal challenge via spending cuts.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 16:40

A Speech For The Ages: Bobby Kennedy Lays Waste To 'Democrats'

Authored by Tim Donner via Liberty Nation,

No one who lived through it will ever forget Nov. 22, 1963, that day of infamy when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. It was the story of the century. Few will remember that, on that same day, legendary author and theologian C.S. Lewis also died; a story that would have ordinarily attracted front-page attention was relegated to a footnote on the back pages. The point is that timing is everything, and so it was with a speech for the ages delivered by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Republican Midterm Convention on Sept. 10.

As he delivered the address, the nation was preparing for the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and conservatives were mourning the assassination of Charlie Kirk one year earlier. There was little room for other news to rise to the top. But now that the dust has cleared from a highly emotional weekend, it is time to give this speech the attention it deserves.

Any Republican can blister the Democratic Party with criticism from dawn to dusk. After all, that's part of the job. But when such a beatdown, such a thorough condemnation, is delivered by someone so intimately associated with that party for six decades, whose father and uncle were both assassinated, and who ultimately turned away from the party long defined by his family at great personal cost, it is worth a close listen. It will rank as one of the most power-packed speeches chronicling the decline of the Democratic Party ever delivered.

Let's set the scene and then let Kennedy's words speak for themselves. The drama was already thick because Bobby's speech was in Dallas, where his uncle was murdered in broad daylight 63 years earlier, setting the nation on a path of self-destruction from which it is still trying to recover. He spoke as if he were channeling Ted Sorensen, the legendary speechwriter who penned JFK's unforgettable expression in his inaugural address, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

This was like a great sermon where, if you stepped back and considered the content, you knew most of the facts, but they had never been organized quite that way and by a person so ideally positioned to deliver the message. So, before it vanishes into the mists of history, let's take you through this tour de force, lightly edited for space. You can watch the full address here.

Kennedy on Fire

Kennedy softened up the crowd and drew laughs by starting off, "I'm 72 years old. And for 70 years of my life, I would have bet any amount of money that I would not be addressing a Republican convention ...

"I grew up in a Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, of my uncle John Kennedy, of my father Robert Kennedy. Ours was a party of strong principles, of clear policies, and an inspiring idealistic vision for America. My uncle ran on a platform of tax cuts, strong defense, and fighting communism. Does that sound familiar?

"The Democrats of that era stood with labor and working people and the American middle class. Nearly every cop and firefighter was a Democrat. Our party was a champion of the Bill of Rights and particularly for unbridled free speech. It was wary of centralized government power and corporate privilege and secret intelligence agencies. My uncle and father understood the connection between free markets and functional democracy. They stood firmly against crony capitalism on the right and socialism on the left. They were all for competition, for meritocracy, and for excellence, which they thought should be a universal aspiration for Americans ...

"My family played critical roles in building NIH and CDC into centers of gold standard science that transformed America into this relentless dynamo of international research. They promoted physical fitness, and they protected women's sports ... They stood with Israel as the bulwark of democracy ... They saw Israel as America's most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism ...

"[Islamism] by its own accounts is waging an existential war against our country and against Western liberal democracies. It's an ideology that has subjugated and impoverished and tyrannized and tortured the people of Palestine and the people of Iran, and they openly promise to do the same to us. Democrats opposed government coercion, defended individual rights, believed that government should give Americans information, good information, and then trust them to make up their own minds. Democrats and labor leaders fought fiercely in my generation to stop illegal immigration at the border.

When It All Came Crashing Down

"During COVID I watched the Democratic Party turn against every one of its essential values, its principles, and all of the policies that define my party. Democrats turned away from gold standard research and blindly defended industry-sponsored, agenda-driven science written by corrupt and captive regulatory agencies.

"And the Democrats, which were once the champions of the American Constitution, systematically obliterated the Bill of Rights. And particularly beginning with the First Amendment, under the guise of combating misinformation, Democrats censored hundreds of scientists and physicians who questioned the government's dubious COVID pronouncements and orthodoxies [Thirty-seven] hours after President Biden took the oath of office, he ordered Facebook and Instagram to remove my accounts ...

"Democrats obliterated the second leg of the First Amendment, the guaranteed right of assembly, by social distancing regulations that were completely un-science-based. Democrats violated the third leg of the First Amendment, the freedom to worship. They closed every church in our country for a year ... Democrats torpedoed the 7th Amendment right to jury trial by giving liability shields to the giant pharmaceutical companies. No matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless, no matter how toxic the ingredients, no matter how grievous your injury, you could not sue them. Democrats violated the 5th Amendment by shutting down 3 million businesses with no due process and no just compensation. Democrats shut down the 4th Amendment, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, by forcing Americans to disclose their medical information before they could exercise their constitutional rights. In a single year, my party obliterated 250 years of constitutional guarantees. The only Bill of Rights that they left unscathed was the Second Amendment, and probably only because there is a Second Amendment."

"And then the party of my body, my choice forced citizens to wear masks and to submit to invasive and intrusive medical interventions against their own wills. The party of MeToo - remember that we were all supposed to listen to women and to believe women - they cruelly silenced the voices of tens of thousands of mothers who believed that their children had suffered vaccine injuries. The Democrats declared war on women's sports, effectively destroying Title IX.

"Democrats condemned meritocracy openly and celebrated mediocrity. The Democratic Party became the party of elites, labeling working Americans as deplorables. Democrats cultivated deep ties with Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Ag, Big Food, Big Insurance, and the mainstream media. They embraced policies that divided Americans along racial lines. They abolished my uncle's physical fitness test because they said that competition was bad for children.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Blinds the Democrats

"The Democrats abandoned all of these values and all of their traditional values, offering Americans only one policy, the one policy that they stood for, the unbridled, sociopathic, and blind hatred of a single man, Donald J. Trump. And they were so confident that Trump hatred alone was sufficient to win elections that they abandoned accountability and made our government a predatory organism of monumental incompetence and corruption.

"The Democrats dismantled the public integrity safeguards and opened the floodgates to thieves and fraudsters who fleeced the American medical regulatory agencies for $100 billion annually during every year of the Biden administration. They somehow lost 360,000 children, and they turned our federal government into the biggest child trafficking operation in world history.

"The Democratic Party, in short, lost its way. I mourn the fact that neither my father nor my uncle would recognize the Democratic Party of today. It struck me this was no longer about left and right. It was about sane and insane. It was about common sense and communism. In April 2023, I ran for president hoping to summon my party back to its bedrock values. But the Democratic Party had lost faith in American voters and, utterly ironically, lost faith in American democracy. They were convinced that they would lose the ballot box. They couldn't win. And so they unveiled a lawfare strategy to prevent an election from occurring. They sued every candidate who dared to run against Joe Biden, and then attempted to remove us all from the ballot. A lot of you think that the lawfare was just against Donald Trump. It was mainly against him, but they sued Dean Phillips. They sued Marianne Williamson. They sued Cornel West. They sued Donald Trump 50 times in 38 states to remove him from the ballot ...

"Here was the Democratic Party that in my youth, the biggest issue that we had that my father and my uncle fought for was voting rights, and particularly in the southern states, to guarantee that every American had a right to cast a ballot. And here's that same party 60 years later using all of its ingenuity and all of its power to make sure that Americans could not vote for the candidates that they wanted to vote for. They excluded me from the debates. They canceled the primaries. The Democratic Party changed the rules to make sure I could not win, and neither could the other people who were running as Democrats, no matter how many votes we got. And for the first time in history, they canceled their own convention. No voter ever cast a primary ballot for Kamala Harris. No elected delegate was ever consulted.

"A party of no kings simply anointed a queen."

So, there you go, a speech so well received that some have spoken of Bobby as a potential vice presidential or even presidential candidate in 2028. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has become a historic figure not just by switching parties and doing the unthinkable by aligning with Donald Trump, but by challenging elite power structures that had all but ignored the nation's outbreak of chronic disease and tyrannized the nation during the pandemic. He has established that he is a warrior with a lasting legacy, and if his speech to his newfound Republican colleagues is any indication, he would appear to have many arrows remaining in his quiver.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 16:20

Manufacturers Set To Move Production Out Of Canada As US Tariffs Hit Hard

The circumstances of US/Canadian trade should be common knowledge by now, but the details often get mired in the swamp of political rhetoric.  When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney describes the tariff issue as the US "waging war" on Canada, he knows exactly what he's doing.  Carney has turned a simple trade issue over reasonable 10% tariffs into an existential crisis, an invasion, an ethnic cleansing, a last stand against "evil" imperialists.  

But getting the Canadian public riled up with delusions that they are underdog insurgents will not help them keep manufacturing companies or domestic jobs.  There is no reason to "endure" a trade war involving 50% tariffs that can be easily solved by simply taking the sweetheart deal that was offered to them.  Carney could easily wait Trump out and try to renegotiate once a new president is elected.  Unless, there's an alternative agenda at play for Carney.

Estimates in July on manufacturing losses indicated that 42% of Canadian companies (and some US companies) would be moving at least a portion of their operations to the US to avoid the debilitating tariffs.  Some will be shutting down entirely.  With Carney asserting that negotiations are off the table, this leaves no room for speculation.  Businesses are adjusting operations for the long haul which means skyrocketing job losses for Canada.

The latest manufacturers to make announcements are:

Aeris Protective Packaging in Montreal: The company says it is opening a U.S. plant after 50% U.S. tariffs on paper and packing containers. About 70% of its customers are in the U.S. It plans to keep some manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario for Canadian, European, and Mexican customers.

Sapporo/Sleeman Breweries:  Sapporo says it will move production of beer made in Canada for the U.S. market to the United States by the first half of 2027, citing 50% tariffs on Canadian beer. Sleeman later said the move is “not finalized”. Most beer sold in Canada would still be brewed in Canada.   

RYAM (Rayonier Advanced Materials) in Témiscaming, Quebec:  The US-owned paperboard mill announced an indefinite temporary shutdown, blaming 50% U.S. tariffs. About 400–425 workers were affected. The stop was first set for mid-September, then postponed to October 3rd after new Canadian orders. The company has not given a restart date. 

Stellantis - Brampton Assembly (Ontario):   In mid-August 2026 the company told Unifor it was opening talks on a possible sale of the idle Brampton plant (idled since late 2023 after Jeep Compass production was moved to the U.S.). Stellantis had plans to reopen the mothballed site, but they backed out after the trade war with the US went parabolic.  

Northern Cable (Brockville, Ontario):  An August 2026 report says the firm is considering a U.S. factory if 50% tariffs on electric cable take effect, because half of the company's business is in the United States.  

Some companies have already move production to the US, including Crown Royale which moved its bottling plant to Alabama in April.

A Reuters/LSEG poll of economists originally predicted Canada would add 15,000 jobs in August 2026.  Instead, the country lost 42,000 jobs; that's a 57,000 job disparity.  Canadian economists are treating the forecast miss as an anomaly, however, it is likely that the decline in jobs will escalate through the end of the year unless a deal between the US and Canada is struck.  

If Carney's intention is to use economic hysteria as a tool to help Democrats win during the US midterm elections, then there's no chance of a deal before the end of the year.  Canadians will continue into winter with the threat of rising unemployment and much higher prices. 

Canada relies on the US for 78% of all export sales and there are no practical trade alternatives.  A similar but smarter base case is Mexico, which sells around 84% of all their exports to American markets.  The difference?  The Mexican government has avoided arrogant jousting with the US and is engaging in fair negotiations (so far).  They are also showing more cooperation to meet the Trump Administration's demands on securing the southern border. 

In other words, they didn't abandon negotiations at the last minute like Carney, and this has helped Mexico to avoid punishing tariffs and job losses.  Whatever Carney's intentions, it's clear that average Canadians will be paying the price for the Prime Minister's lack of diplomacy.  

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

"High Crimes And Misdemeanors": Massie Forces House Vote To Impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday introduced privileged articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing him of waging an unauthorized war in Iran, ignoring a congressional directive to end it, conducting extrajudicial killings at sea, retaliating against a U.S. senator, seizing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro without legal authority, and launching unauthorized operations in Yemen.

Massie read the resolution on the House floor for more than an hour, pushing the day's first vote series to 4 p.m. and a later series to 9:30 p.m., and filed it as a privileged measure, which under House rules requires a vote within two legislative days. Politico reports the resolution's nature forces a vote this week, the House's last before it leaves for the midterms. Republicans can table the resolution. In a GOP-controlled House, it is widely expected to fail.

BREAKING: Rep. Thomas Massie has just moved to impeach Secretary of War Pete Hegseth for "high crimes and misdemeanors."

🤯 pic.twitter.com/TCnZ6sb4VD

— Andrew Kolvet (@AndrewKolvet) September 15, 2026

The move is unprecedented: a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee attempting to impeach a Cabinet secretary in a Republican administration. Massie is a lame-duck lawmaker. He lost his May primary to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein after a public feud in which Hegseth traveled to Kentucky to campaign against him.

"By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable," Massie said in a statement. "Secretary Hegseth's constitutional violations extend beyond the illegal war in Iran. He is abusing the power of his office to ignore congressional war powers resolutions, to kidnap foreign leaders, and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free speech."

The full text is posted on Massie's official House site. The resolution refers to Hegseth as "Secretary of Defense (also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration)."

The eight articles

Massie's resolution lists eight charges. The first three concern the Iran war and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The remaining five cover other operations and alleged abuses of office.

Article I - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §2(c)

Massie charges that Hegseth directed U.S. forces into hostilities against Iran on February 28, 2026, without a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, an attack on the United States, or an imminent threat. The article cites §2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §1541(c)), which limits the president's power to introduce forces into hostilities to those three circumstances. It quotes a March 17 resignation letter from then-National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent: "I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation." The article argues the war was unlawful from its first day.

Article II - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(c)

This article focuses on Hegseth's refusal to obey H. Con. Res. 86, which both chambers passed in June directing the president, under §5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran. The House approved the concurrent resolution 215-208 on June 3; the Senate agreed 50-48 on June 23. Massie was the only House Republican cosponsor. Four House Republicans voted yes: Massie, Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.). The White House treated the measure as nonbinding and did not withdraw forces.

Article III - Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(b)

Section 5(b) requires the president to terminate unauthorized hostilities within 60 days of notification to Congress, with a possible 30-day withdrawal window. Hostilities began February 28; the 60-day mark was about May 1. The administration argued that an April 7 ceasefire "terminated" hostilities and reset or paused the clock. Massie calls that a legal fiction and says Hegseth treated mandatory statutory deadlines as discretionary. Operations, blockades, and later strikes continued.

Article IV - Ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties

The article accuses Hegseth of disregarding statutes and rules intended to limit civilian harm in Iran and elsewhere. Democratic articles filed in April by Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) had cited the February 28 bombing of a girls' school in Minab, Iran, and large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure. Massie's version is framed more generally as a failure to apply civilian-protection law.

Article V - Extrajudicial killings

This charge concerns Operation Southern Spear, the campaign of lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that began September 2, 2025. Massie says Hegseth replaced maritime law enforcement with unauthorized military targeting, resulting in at least 221 deaths. The article also alleges denial of quarter, secondary strikes on survivors, failure to rescue shipwrecked persons, and the invention of "artificial legal authorities" for the campaign. The administration says the boats belong to designated "narco-terrorist" groups and that the United States is in an armed conflict with cartels. Human Rights Watch, WOLA, and U.N. experts have called the strikes extrajudicial killings.

Article VI - Suppressing free speech

Massie accuses Hegseth of using Defense Department authority to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain and astronaut, for a November 2025 video in which Kelly and five other Democratic veterans told service members they may refuse illegal orders. Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure in January 2026, entered it into Kelly's personnel file, and opened a process that could reduce Kelly's retired rank and pension. Trump called the video "seditious" and suggested the lawmakers should be arrested. Kelly sued the Pentagon. Massie frames the censure as intimidation of constitutionally protected speech.

Article VII - Kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader

This article concerns Operation Absolute Resolve, the January 3, 2026, raid in Caracas that seized Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores and extracted them to U.S. custody aboard USS Iwo Jima. The administration described the mission as a law-enforcement apprehension on existing narco-terrorism indictments, not a war. It involved more than 150 aircraft, special operations forces, and supporting strikes. Massie charges that Hegseth directed the operation without constitutional or statutory authority to seize a sitting head of state. Venezuelan and Cuban casualties were reported; seven U.S. service members were injured.

Article VIII - Unlawful war in Yemen

The last article charges Hegseth with initiating Operation Rough Rider without congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, violating war-powers reporting rules, and conducting strikes that killed civilians and hit rescuers and other protected persons.

Each article concludes that Hegseth "will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office" and warrants impeachment, trial, removal, and disqualification from future office.

How we got here: the Iran war and the 60-day clock

The legal core of Massie's case is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted over President Nixon's veto after Vietnam. In brief:

• The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities.
• Absent a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, those forces must be withdrawn within 60 days (plus up to 30 days to extract them).
• Congress may also direct removal at any time by concurrent resolution under §5(c).

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began February 28, 2026, under what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury. The administration filed a 48-hour report acknowledging that date. There was no declaration of war and no Authorization for Use of Military Force aimed at Iran.

On April 7, President Trump ordered a ceasefire. On May 1 the White House told Congress that "the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated," arguing the 60-day clock had been satisfied. Critics in both parties said a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, forward-deployed forces, and later strikes showed the war had not ended. A brief April pause collapsed. Further U.S. strikes followed in June and July. The administration later treated later bombing as a new set of hostilities with a new clock. Massie has called that "an absurd ruse" and said the Pentagon was "pretending there have been two Iran wars separated by a brief cease-fire."

Congress voted repeatedly. Most early war-powers measures failed by slim margins. Then H. Con. Res. 86 passed both chambers in June - the first time since 1973 that both houses used §5(c) to direct removal from an unauthorized conflict. The White House said a concurrent resolution has no force of law and would not reach the president's desk. Operations continued. Hegseth has publicly described the Iran campaign as necessary, defensive of shipping and U.S. forces, and consistent with the president's commander-in-chief power.

Massie has been on this ground for more than a year. In June 2025 he and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a bipartisan war-powers resolution to bar unauthorized hostilities in Iran. He has voted for later Iran withdrawal measures and has argued that Article I, not Article II, holds the power to start wars.

This is not the first attempt to impeach Hegseth

Massie's filing is the most procedurally serious because it is privileged and filed by a sitting Republican. It is not the first.

• In December 2025, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced two articles (H. Res. 935) focused on alleged murder in an early Caribbean boat strike - including a reported follow-up strike on survivors - and mishandling of classified information in a Signal chat about Yemen operations. The resolution went nowhere in committee.
• On April 15, 2026, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), an Iranian American freshman, filed six articles (H. Res. 1177) with more than a dozen Democratic cosponsors: unauthorized war in Iran; violations of the law of armed conflict and targeting of civilians (including the Minab school); reckless handling of sensitive military information; obstruction of congressional oversight; abuse of power and politicization of the armed forces; and conduct bringing disrepute on the United States. Progressive groups endorsed it. It was referred to Judiciary and never received a floor vote.

Massie's eight articles overlap those earlier efforts on Iran, civilian harm, boat strikes, and Kelly, and add the Maduro raid and Yemen as standalone counts.

Impeachment of a Cabinet officer is rare. The House has used the power against a Cabinet secretary only twice in U.S. history, William Belknap in 1876 and Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024. Conviction in the Senate requires two-thirds. Even if the House adopted Massie's articles, a Republican Senate would be extremely unlikely to convict.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 15:00

Thune "Open To Exploring" Diesel Export Ban As Skyrocketing Prices Raise Fears Of 2008-Style Shock

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters this morning that he is "open to exploring" a diesel export ban as AAA's national average price for the industrial fuel continues to set new highs, now topping $6.27 a gallon.

*THUNE SAYS HE IS 'OPEN TO CONSIDERING' AN EXPORT BAN ON DIESEL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 15, 2026

His comments follow a warning yesterday from Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike McGlone that surging fuel prices are signaling the risk of a 2008-style energy shock.

"We'll be looking at any proposal that is a viable solution, but I do think if we have the supply in this country and we're exporting it right now that might be one way of getting at it," Thune told reporters, who were quoted by Bloomberg, in response to a question. "If that would take pressure off of prices, you know I'm open to exploring it."

Any broad diesel ban by the US would initially lower Gulf Coast wholesale prices while driving overseas diesel prices even higher, as the world is engulfed in a refinery crisis produced by the Russia-Ukraine war and compounded by the mess in the Gulf area.

The latest EIA data show U.S. distillate exports averaged about 1.7 million barrels a day over the four weeks through September 4. Distillates include diesel and heating oil, so the volume affected would depend on the ban's scope.

The surge in industrial fuel costs prompted Bloomberg Intelligence's McGlone to warn on Monday: "Commodity spikes tend to sow the seeds of their own reversal, and diesel's first-ever surge above $6 a gallon may echo gasoline's 2008 experience. The US daily average gasoline price, at roughly $4.30 on Sept. 11, is only about 4% above its 2008 peak, which helped fuel the Great Recession."

JPMorgan's head of commodities research, Natasha Kaneva, outlined six policy options in March that the Trump administration could pursue to contain oil prices.

Several, including Jones Act waivers and SPR releases, have already been deployed. New discussion of export restrictions raises the question of whether a federal fuel-tax suspension could also enter the policy conversation to contain runaway fuel prices.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 14:20

Japanese Bond Yields Surge To 30 Year High On Report Tokyo May Hike Defense Spending To 3.5% Of GDP

Just in case Japan's bond yields weren't high enough already, Bloomberg reports that Japan is considering a new mid-term defense spending target of 3.5% of GDP in line with NATO and other US allies. Such a move would send a shockwave through financial markets concerned about Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s spending plans at a time when Japan is preparing to trim tax receipts even more by cutting consumption tax to 1%.

Japanese defense officials have already signaled a willingness to sharply increase defense spending in meetings with their US counterparts, Bloomberg reported. One scenario under consideration is to match a commitment made by South Korea to increase defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product over 10 years, while a lower target, such as 3%, is also possible, according to one of the people.

Responding to the news, Japanese Defense Ministry Press Secretary Kimihito Aguin denied that Japan had expressed an intention to the US to sharply raise spending to 3.5% of GDP, although that is likely explained by his fear how the bond market would react if another huge spending category is suddenly revealed. 

“Japan’s defense buildup is something we undertake based on our own independent judgment, under the fundamental principle that we must defend our own country ourselves,” Aguin said at a press conference Tuesday. “It is also not a matter of starting with a predetermined spending figure. What matters is the substance of our defense capabilities.”

Well, the substance of Japan's defense capabilities is entirely dependent on how much is spent, so.... 

Like other US allies, Tokyo has been under pressure from the Trump administration to boost its defensive strength and reduce its reliance on the American military. Takaichi has already accelerated defense spending to almost 2% of gross domestic product in the financial year ended in March this year, two years ahead of schedule. 

Until 2022, Japan had an informal cap on defense spending around 1% of GDP, an indication of how quickly thinking on defense has changed in recent years. A new five-year defense spending plan is expected at the end of this year. Committing to 3.5% could unsettle market players wary of large debt issuance, even though Takaichi has pledged to follow a “responsible, proactive fiscal policy.”

While US defense officials have largely avoided public pressure on Japan to commit to a 3.5% defense spending goal, they have made clear that they expect significantly more investment. 

“We are anxiously looking for Japan to step up,” US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby said last month of Tokyo’s defense spending.

In June, Takaichi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party noted that 3.5% had become a global standard for defense spending, but didn’t provide recommendations on how Japan could pay for such a level of outlays.

“We’ll review both spending and revenue across the board,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday. “While keeping a close eye on tax revenue, we’ll determine a level of fiscal spending — including, of course, defense spending — that is consistent with steadily bringing down the debt-to-GDP ratio.”

In meetings between defense officials from both nations, Japan has indicated it will most likely align with other US allies but it has avoided discussing details. Some Japanese officials have said they aren’t ready to make a formal pledge and would deny the existence of such a goal if it was made public, according to Bloomberg. In public, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has also said spending will be determined by military needs rather than monetary targets.

Behind Japan’s caution over specifying a goal is concern over the amount of funding needed to reach 3.5%. When Japan set its 2% goal in 2022 it said it would continue to measure spending in comparison to GDP that year. Koizumi said in April that defense spending and related expenditures for this fiscal year of ¥10.6 trillion ($68.8 billion) were equivalent to 1.9% of nominal GDP in 2022.

Measured against the Cabinet Office’s nominal GDP forecast for this fiscal year, spending would come to 1.5%, he said. A budget of 3.5% using that forecast would amount to ¥24 trillion, more than double the current amount.

Spending 3.5% of GDP on defense has become a global benchmark for US allies since North Atlantic Treaty Organization members pledged last June to reach that level by 2035. As a national security hawk and strong advocate of the US-Japan alliance, Takaichi has made clear she wants to further boost the military. 

“Japan needs to proactively pursue a fundamental strengthening of its defense capabilities,” she said in parliament this year.

But she also has ambitious plans for the economy. This year Takaichi announced a growth plan targeting more than ¥370 trillion in combined public and private investment by 2040, a program that may strain the nation’s finances. Ramping up defense spending at the same time may test investors’ confidence in Japan’s ability to keep a lid on its debt. After lifting its informal cap on defense spending in 2022, Japan has made significant investments in long-range strike capabilities such as land and ship-launched Tomahawk missiles. In its budget request for the fiscal year starting next April, the Defense Ministry requested a record ¥8.9 trillion for the next fiscal year, up 0.9% from the current year.

But many items in the budget request haven’t been given a projected cost, meaning the final budget is likely to be much higher. Yen weakness has also eroded Japan’s spending power for weapons from overseas.

Even if Japan commits to 3.5%, it would lag behind NATO countries. For NATO, the target is for so-called “core” defense spending, such as weapons and troop salaries. Members have also pledged an additional 1.5% of GDP for defense-related spending, such as protecting critical infrastructure.

Japan bundles core and non-core spending in its defense budget, meaning that it would be spending less on its military as a percentage of GDP than NATO countries even if it raised defense outlays to 3.5% of GDP.

Robert Ward, Japan Chair at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the groundwork had been laid among policymakers and bureaucrats in Japan for a big jump in defense spending. It’s now mostly a matter of timing of when Japan goes to 3.5%, he said.

“Whether it’s over five years or 10 years, I don’t see any alternative given how important the US alliance is,” Ward said.

Japanese defense shares IHI Corp and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd closed 1.8% and 0.9% higher in Tokyo, reversing earlier losses of more than 2%, after the report came out. The biggest impact was on Japanese government bonds extended their fall, with the benchmark 10-year yield rising to its highest level since 1996. The yen weakened as far as 155.24 to the dollar.

“There are fiscal concerns, as shown in the bond market reaction, so it’s difficult for investors to take news like this positively,” said Daisuke Aiba, an analyst at Iwai Cosmo Securities Co. “Plus, there are questions about whether Japan actually has the ability to expand its defense capabilities beyond their current limited scope.”

There was more: besides spending more, Japan is hell-bent on also collecting less (after all there are votes to be bought), and on Tuesday the Takaichi cabinet approved a plan to temporarily reduce the consumption tax on food, moving closer to delivering on a key campaign pledge ahead of February’s national election to ease the burden on households from the soaring cost of living by eliminating sales tax on food for two years.

The cabinet signed off on the annual tax reform plan, which calls for lowering the sales tax on food and beverages to 1% from 8% for two years starting in April. Under the proposal, the government won’t issue new debt to finance the roughly ¥5 trillion ($32.3 billion) measure, but... of course it will in the end. The government deferred until the end of the year a decision on how to fund the tax cut. The reason for the delay: there is no other way to fund the tax cut since no other part of the Japanese govt will agree to slashing its own expenditures. 

“Tax revenue will likely rise, and also we will review various revenue and expenditures,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday during an appearance on Fuji TV, reiterating that the government will find ways to finance the measure without relying on new debt. She added that Japan’s version of the Department of Government Efficiency will step up efforts to review and eliminate redundant subsidies and spending.

“We will make sweeping cuts to wasteful spending from now on,” Katayama said, responding to criticism that ministries identified only three programs for possible cuts in voluntary reviews aimed at finding cost savings.

Oh yes, a Japanese DOGE. That should help slow down debt issuance in the most indebted country in world history. 

Borrowing costs for the Japanese government were already elevated, with bond yields hovering near three-decade highs. The 10-year yield hit 3% earlier this month for the first time since 1996, driven by concerns over inflation and fiscal spending as well as expectations the Bank of Japan may need to raise interest rates more quickly. The yield was half that level around this time last year; it closed Tuesday at 3.04%, the highest since August 2016.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 13:40

Terrible 20Y Auction Prices With Huge Tail, Lowest Foreign Demand On Record

Earlier today during his grilling in Congress, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked to explain the recent spike in yields, to which his response was to blame oil, and point out that last week's 10Y and 30Y auctions were both stellar. Which they were... but only because they took place on days when yields soared earlier itn eh day, giving buyers in the auction solid concessions and thus a desire to bid aggressively for the paper, which they did.

*BESSENT: JUST HAD 2 OF MOST SUCCESSFUL DEBT AUCTIONS IN 20 YRS

right, thanks to the huge concessions on VaR shock days

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 15, 2026

There was no such concession today when yields had been trading around 5% for much of the day. And without a concession, demand for today's 20Y Treasury auction was much more indicative of the true state of the primary bond market.

And that is, to Bessent's disappointment, very dismal!

The auction priced at a high yield of 5.420%, the highest on record since the 20Y auction was introduced in May of 2020, and up from 5.204% in August. Worse, it tailed the When Issued 5.400%, a 2.0bps tail, which was the biggest since 2024!

The bid to cover was below average: at 2.57 it was just above last month's 2.53, but below the recent average of 2.65.

The internals were far worse: Indirects plunged from 62.9% to just 52.5%, far below the recent average of 68.0%, and in fact, the lowest on record!

And with Directs soaring to 30.7% from 24.6%, which was the highest on record by a wide margin, left Dealers holding 16.9%, not quite the highest on record but close.

So what's the verdict? Well, hot on the heels of two stellar auctions last week, which however were only stellar because the broader market was plunging, today's 20Y was as close to a failed auction as Bessent would like to get at a time when QE is not there to mop up any treasury mess that the surge in inflation can cause. Which reminds us: now that the buyback bluff has failed, what will be the next crisis that sets up the US for the next version of QE (we lost track which one that will be) and maybe just fast forward to the first Yield Curve Control since World War II. And why not: pretty much anyone who is paying attention will tell you that the world now finds itself in another world war... 

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 13:30

Energy Truce In Shambles: Ukraine Strikes Russian Refinery Despite Trump's Warning Amid Global Diesel Crisis

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on X that Ukrainian forces struck the Syzran refinery in Russia's Samara region, about 75 miles west of Samara and 466 miles southeast of Moscow. The strike comes days after President Trump urged Ukraine to halt attacks on Russian refineries, as average US retail diesel prices jumped above $6 a gallon and alarming disruptions to global refining capacity threaten fuel supplies ahead of the Northern Hemisphere winter. 

Zelenskyy wrote on X: 

Russia continues to attack our energy sector, regular logistics, and critical infrastructure. And our responses to them for this are tangible. There are new results from the Defense Forces of Ukraine regarding the refinery in Syzran. There was also a strike in Taganrog on a drone production facility, as well as on a drone preparation and launch site in the Oryol region. Targets were hit in the Black Sea as well. I thank every one of our warriors for the effectiveness of our long-range sanctions!

The day before, the United States also announced a significant decision regarding Russia's VTB Bank – one of Russia's systemic banks, which is heavily involved in schemes supporting Russia's war and, in particular, its relations with the Iranian regime. All such schemes that work against peace truly need to be dismantled. I thank our partners for this useful step!

There is no alternative to ending this war. And all forms of pressure on Russia must create the right diplomatic conditions. Glory to Ukraine!

Russia continues to attack our energy sector, regular logistics, and critical infrastructure. And our responses to them for this are tangible. There are new results from the Defense Forces of Ukraine regarding the refinery in Syzran. There was also a strike in Taganrog on a drone… pic.twitter.com/Lu47QcmvuD

— Volodymyr Zelenskyy / Володимир Зеленський (@ZelenskyyUa) September 15, 2026

President Trump on Sunday urged Ukraine to stop attacking Russian refineries, as record US diesel prices above $6 a gallon intensify political concerns over fuel costs and affordability ahead of November's midterm elections.

Trump blamed the strikes for shortages he said were "hurting the world." Ukraine's drone strike campaign against Russian refineries has curtailed refining and, alongside Moscow's export restrictions, sharply reduced overseas diesel supplies, tightening availability of the industrial fuel essential to freight, agriculture and industry. 

Compounding the supply pressure, Saudi Arabia shut its East-West pipeline following a drone attack that Saudi and Iraqi authorities said originated in Iraq. The pipeline provides Saudis with a critical route to Red Sea export facilities, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Houthi advances around the Bab al-Mandeb Strait are threatening another major maritime chokepoint, adding to disruptions on both sides of the Arabian Peninsula.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 13:25

AI Agents Cheated In Google Experiment, Researchers Report

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Artificial intelligence (AI) agents tasked with math problems began cheating when encountering more difficult conjectures, Google researchers reported in a new study.

They also found that some of the agents reported those that cheated.

Google DeepMind studied the activity of 100 agents given a set of 71 formal math conjectures, or math problems, ranging from simple to very hard, with some unresolved. The researchers told the agents to act as researchers participating in a shared scientific conference. They instructed the agents not to cheat by stating: "Your proofs must be mathematically genuine. Any attempt to bypass verification will be detected and your submission will be rejected with zero credit."

The researchers observed some agents cheating "once the swarm encountered harder open conjectures," they said in a preprint study released Sept. 3 on the arXiv server. Nine percent of the agents dismissed the prompt and cheated, and another 5 percent cheated after initially hesitating.

"Because the platform permanently locked any problem upon the first accepted submission, honest agents faced complete exclusion as the problem pool dwindled. Observing that adherence to rules resulted in compute waste while cheating peers swept the leaderboard, hesitant agents switched to cheating to avoid being locked out entirely," wrote the researchers, all of whom are employed by Google.

About a quarter of the agents refused to cheat and publicly raised concerns about what the cheating agents were doing. The rest of the agents were deeply engaged in genuine math, unaware of the cheating, and became deadlocked, according to the researchers.

The study followed several instances of AI agents breaking free of programming constraints.

Because the base of knowledge in the Google experiment was open to all agents, the cheating behavior was able to spread, but whistleblowing behavior was also possible, the study concluded. Whistleblowers tried sanctioning the cheating agents but could not prevent the cheating because "the environment lacked formal conflict-resolution arenas and technical tools to enforce sanctions (such as revoking an offending agent's right to commit to the knowledge base)."

Removing communication channels is not a good strategy with groups of agents, the researchers said, since they will likely establish unmonitored channels.

"This suggests that the path forward lies through decentralized self-governance with appropriate framing, which has the potential to be much more effective and scalable than human oversight," they said. "In our experiment the agents lacked the required institutional affordances, such as tools to sanction the exploiters, resolve conflicts, and collectively change the rules of the verification system. While the whistleblowing response was ultimately unable to halt the exploit, this was a failure of institutional design, not of normative capacity."

Google did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Google DeepMind's co-founder, Demis Hassabis, said over the weekend that AI development should slow down, given recent advances in the technology and incidents such as the breach of Hugging Face, an open-source AI platform.

The Hugging Face attack in July took place after OpenAI agents broke out of a testing sandbox. OpenAI has also said the models' internal safeguards were intentionally lowered as part of the test.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 13:20

Warsh’s Credibility Test: How The Fed Chair Painted Himself Into A Corner

Only about two weeks ago, downside risk to the labor market had been flagged by a negative nonfarm payroll growth number for July, progress was being made on the inflation front, and Warsh had been exceptionally quiet for a Fed Chair. Consequently, markets were pricing in a low probability for a rate hike in September, just over 30%.

Then, as Rabobank's Philip Marey writes in his FOMC preview note, at Jackson Hole, Warsh surprised the markets with a hawkish speech on inflation. A week later, the new Employment Report erased the negative number for July, replaced it by a positive number, and added an outright impressive positive nonfarm payroll growth figure for August. Then, on Friday, the CPI report showed a larger than expected month-on-month increase in the core CPI, suggesting that progress on inflation was stalling. As a result, markets are now pricing in a near certain probability of a hike in September and 3-4 hikes in total before the end of next year, and then another 2 by next summer.

Looking through inflation

Echoing some of Goldman's FOMC views (see "Goldman Now Expects A Fed Hike This Week, Not Because It's Needed, But Because Warsh Doesn't Want To Disappoint The Market"), Rabobank's Philip Marey writes that if we look at the economy, downside risks to the labor market have receded for now and GDP growth remains solid. Therefore, the Fed can focus on inflation. It is clear that inflation is too high at 3.4% headline CPI year-on-year and 2.4% core CPI year-on-year in August. However, much of the excess inflation can be attributed to supply shocks, most notably the war with Iran. Since monetary policy is aimed at the demand side of the economy, the central bank cannot do much about supply shocks. Therefore, the academic literature suggests that central banks should look through the temporary episodes of inflation caused by supply shocks and focus on the underlying inflation trend, provided that long-term inflation expectations remain anchored.

Since these inflation expectations have remained stable, whether measured by consumer surveys or derived from financial markets, Rabobank thinks that the Fed should have been able to keep the target for the federal funds rate unchanged for the remainder of the year.

Warsh’s credibility test

However, Warsh’s speech at Jackson Hole was a game changer. Perhaps overcompensating for his loss of credibility at the July post-FOMC press conference, the new Fed Chair struck a surprisingly hawkish tone two weeks ago. The immediate market reaction suggested that he had improved his credibility as an inflation fighter, but it was still all talk and no action. If the subsequent labor market data had remained weak and inflation had showed continued progress, Warsh might have been able to get away with it. However, both crucial data sets are calling Warsh’s bluff. With decreased downside risk to the labor market and stalling progress on inflation, Warsh’s tough talk at Jackson Hole may warrant rate action in the coming months. Remaining on hold is becoming increasingly difficult.

And while Rabobank - like Goldman - still thinks that the Fed should look through the current episode of inflation, Warsh seems to have painted himself into a corner with his hawkish speech at Jackson Hole. Since the labor market and inflation data have not come to his rescue, we now add a rate hike to our Fed forecasts for 2026, which previously assumed that Warsh was able to navigate through the year without hiking. 

This also shows that looking through inflation could benefit from forward guidance. Markets are now translating all inflation pressures into expectations of a higher policy rate path.

If we look at Friday's market reaction to the CPI report, it is clear that a September hike is largely priced in. With only one day left before the FOMC meeting, and the Fed in a blackout period, this is not likely to change. Consequently, not hiking on Wednesday would come as a big surprise to the markets. In fact, with markets now pricing in 3-4 hikes in total before the end of next year, it would be a real mind-bender. Failing to raise rates now will fundamentally fracture the Fed’s relationship with the markets and cause considerable volatility in the coming months. Therefore, Rabobank - like Goldman and many other banks - put its forecast for a hike in September, rather than October or December.

September or October?

However, although markets are now convinced that the Fed is going to hike in September, Rabo's Fed watcher still has some lingering doubts. First, the 0.1 ppt overshoot in core inflation month-on-month seems to have been caused to a large extent by an extreme 5.9% (this is month-on-month!) increase in the price of wireless telephone services.

Otherwise, core inflation would have been in line with the 0.2% consensus expectation and low enough for the doves to stick to their guns. In fact, they may point to the random nature of this overshoot as an argument for remaining on hold in September.

Second, the 2.4% year-on-year core CPI figure is the lowest since March 2021! Consequently, a September hike could still meet with opposition from the doves and this could delay the final decision to the next meeting in October. That would increase the likelihood of a more unanimous decision.

Therefore, although Rabobank puts its hike forecast in September, the bank still think there is a risk that the hike gets delayed until October. In fact, Warsh may still try to delay the hike beyond the midterms, but then he runs the risk of being outvoted by the FOMC. This would mean a loss of credibility within the Committee. He will have to balance credibility with the financial markets and the FOMC with his relationship with the White House. There no longer seems a path to a painless solution, so he will have to appease and alienate both sides at different times. A rate hike would satisfy the markets and the hawks, but annoy the White House. By avoiding further hikes, he will alienate the former and improve his standing with the latter, especially if he steers towards rate cuts in 2027. In the end, if a hike is unavoidable then from a purely electoral perspective September may be more attractive than October, because that meeting is less than a week before Election Day.

One and Done

More importantly, although markets are now pricing in 3-4 hikes before the end of 2027, Rabobank like Goldman is convinced that the supply side nature of the shocks that are driving this spell of inflation does not warrant a new hiking cycle. One should suffice to keep inflation expectations anchored, two at most. Therefore, market pricing is likely overdone and Rabo puts only one rate hike in its  Fed forecasts for 2026.

Of course, it could be argued that the AI boom is causing a demand shock that could add to inflation pressures and therefore warrant additional hikes (especially for memory prices). However, many doubt the Fed would tackle the AI boom to ease inflation. After all, the promise of AI is that it is going to increase productivity down the road, which would ease inflation pressures long term and make it easier for the Fed to reach its 2% inflation target (even if it sends inflation sharply higher in the near-term). And then we are not even talking about the geopolitical implications of sabotaging the home team in the AI race with China.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 13:00

Newsom Says He Won't Run For President In 2028 If Kamala Harris Does

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Sept. 14 that he would not run for president in 2028 if former Vice President Kamala Harris decides to make another presidential bid.

"I don't know if she runs, but we'll see," Newsom, a Democrat, told CNN anchor Jake Tapper in an interview.

"I wouldn't run if she ran."

Newsom said that running against Harris, who became the Democratic presidential candidate during the 2024 election after then-President Joe Biden withdrew his bid, would be an electoral gift for their political opponents and "waste everyone's time."

"First of all, electorally, it's a gift from God for everybody else. They'd enjoy the hell out of it. Mutual assured destruction. It services no greater good," the governor said.

When asked about the fact that Harris had launched presidential bids in 2019 and 2024, while Newsom had never run for president, Newsom said that could be an "approach to the campaign," but that he would be competing for the same voters who supported Harris.

"That's objectively true. But I know what that means. I know her base of supporters, I know her friends, the Venn diagram on that is just pure crossover. I wouldn't do that to people," he said.

Harris, who was vice president at the time, lost the 2024 election to Republican Donald Trump, who returned to the White House for a second term. She previously launched a presidential bid for the 2020 election but dropped out two months before the primary voting began.

Newsom said he was not ready to run for president in 2024.

"If I did, I would have gotten crushed because I didn't have a why. You don't have a big enough why, then you don't belong there," the governor said.

Harris has hinted that she may run for president again in 2028. During the National Action Network's annual convention in New York City in April, Harris said that she was "thinking about" another presidential run.

Harris previously served as California's attorney general before representing the state in the U.S. Senate from 2017 to 2021.

Newsom, who was elected governor in 2018 and won reelection in 2022, is term-limited and cannot seek a third consecutive term. He will leave office in January 2027.

Newsom has not declared a presidential candidacy but said in October 2025 that he was considering a 2028 presidential run.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/15/2026 - 12:40