Iran is said to have struck a Very Large Crude Carrier in the Strait of Hormuz late on Monday, signaling what will likely be the resumption of strikes on foreign vessels seeking to navigate the Strait of Hormuz, after last week’s diplomatic talks at the UN failed to produce a breakthrough. Still, for the time being more oil is being shipped through the strait compared to where the situation was for the past many months of war.

Maritime monitor UKMTO indicated the vessel was struck by a suspected unknown projectile, resulting in a fire. The fire looks to have been extinguished quickly, with the crew safe and the vessel underway on its transit.

On Tuesday Iran’s parliament speaker Bagher Ghalibaf has reiterated that America should know that “in a region where we don’t sell oil, no one will sell oil.“ He followed with, “If our security is not ensured, no infrastructure will be safe.” Later in the day, Fars reported that another drone has been fired an ‘illicit’ ship, however few details have been given.

Ghalibaf further described during a parliament session that “the era of intimidation and threats is over” and that the Islamic Republic would escalate its responses.

But he also echoed prior words of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who at last week’s UN General Assembly said that Iran still seeks diplomacy while asserting its rights.

Similar messaging has been newly issued on the Iranian military front, with Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, who is a senior advisor to the Supreme Leader, saying that the armed forces stand ready to expand the confrontation to new fronts.

Referencing the ongoing Houthi conflict with the Saudis, wherein the Iran-aligned rebel group has captured Yemen’s Red Sea coast, Safavi stated, “The addition of the Bab al-Mandab Strait would change the scene of the war,“ as quoted in IRIB News.

While some reports have long pointed to the likelihood that IRGC advisers assisted the Houthis this month, the high-ranking general suggested Tehran could get more directly involved, or could tell the Houthis to close the Bab al-Mandab Strait to all foreign vessels.

So far, Houthi statements have sought to assure the rest of the world, particularly Europe, that international vessels can still safely pass through, with the exception of Saudi or Israeli-linked ships.

On the question of Strait of Hormuz transit, The Wall Street Journal summarizes the conclusions of several monitoring firms:

Iran’s ability to choke off oil flowing through the Strait of Hormuz—and use that as leverage in talks with the U.S.—is breaking down, raising the risk it will resort to military escalation to bolster its position.

The erosion of Iran’s position comes as the U.S. Navy and Gulf oil producers have become better at fending off or evading Iranian attacks, allowing more tankers to cross the strait.

Middle Eastern crude exports rebounded this month to around their highest level since the war began in February, oil data trackers say. Shipments via Hormuz and bypass routes were delivering just under 80% of their prewar regional flows as of last week, according to tracker Kpler.

Ghalibaf’s aforementioned threat of “no one will sell oil” promises to change this equation – though clearly US Marines are directly involved in trying to protect shipping.

“So far this month, crude exports from major Middle Eastern producers including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the U.A.E. and others—moving through Hormuz and alternative routes—have risen to almost 13 million barrels a day,” WSJ notes. “That is the highest total since February, when the region exported nearly 19 million barrels a day, according to ship tracker Huax.”

As for talks, Iran has insisted there are no direct talks and that the nuclear file is not up for negotiation, at least until after the war ends with a ceasefire deal in place.

🔺 Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi denied reports that Tehran has shifted its position in talks with the US, telling state media Monday that there has been no discussion of the nuclear issue, “let alone flexibility.”

“Iran’s position has not changed at all,” he told IRNA… https://t.co/FXcKMMvoTj

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 29, 2026

According to a summary of a press briefing by Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman Majed al-Ansari on Tuesday::

• Qatar and other mediators are still delivering messages between Iran and the United States and Doha will continue these efforts.
• Mediators are holding meetings and exchanging possible solutions between the two sides to end the seven-month conflict.
• The US-Israeli war on Iran has inflicted a heavy toll on the global economy and the upcoming winter season will make the situation worse with energy shipments largely blocked.
• Qatar condemns Israeli comments on taking over territory in Lebanon and Gaza and demands unimpeded aid to reach the beleaguered Palestinians.
• The Israeli government is trying to force “a new reality” in the occupied West Bank that contradicts the Oslo accords.
• Qatar welcomes actions by the European Union and other countries against illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory.

And like clockwork: WTI futures are on session lows, having added to losses after comments from the Qatar Foreign Ministry on possible US-Iran solutions.

Rial at record low against US dollar, with traders in Tehran exchanging more than 2.5 million rials to the dollar.

Iran Is Battered but Not Collapsing

Six months of war left Iran economically battered, its society exhausted, and its politics conflicted. But Iran is neither on the verge of collapse nor a bastion of unity and stability.

My piece for @ME_Council https://t.co/nrLXs9Q9tz

— Negar Mortazavi (@NegarMortazavi) September 29, 2026

More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk

• Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi said Tehran discussed proposals with Qatari mediators to present to the US, and response is to be relayed to Tehran through Qatari mediators, adds conditions set by Supreme Leader must be met to reopen Strait of Hormuz. If the US wants a deal or peace, Iran has offered a solution. He will fly to Tehran in a few hours, and the Qataris will know how to reach us whenever they have the answer. Expects US response on Tuesday. Communications and messages exchanged by Qatari and Pakistani mediators have always been, but now they have taken a more serious form due to the plan presented by Iran.
• Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi said Iran’s positions have not changed and conditions for reopening the Strait of Hormuz are clear, while their position on other matters is clear. Hopeful the US’ final answer will be conveyed via Qatari “by tomorrow”.
• Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei said media reported about the content of consultations with the Qatari mediator are baseless speculation, noting such accounts have no basis in reality and no discussion of the details of the issues took place.
• Iran Foreign Ministry Iranian delegation met with Qatar mediator on Monday afternoon at the UNGA, adds media speculation on Qatar talks is false and that there were no talks held on detailed issues with Qatari mediator. said:. Iran delegation will depart New York for Tehran on Monday night.
• Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei said no negotiations will begin until the US fulfils its commitments in the Islamabad understanding, while he stated that Iranian diplomats lack permission for bilateral or trilateral talks in the current situation. said:. US failed to release blocked funds after Islamabad deal.
• UN Secretary-General Guterres requested in a meeting with Iran’s Foreign Minister Araghchi for a continuation of negotiations to achieve peace, according to Fars News Agency.
• US President Trump posted “Axios just released a story that “Trump” offered Sanctions Relief and Frozen Funds to Iran. This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING! Axios’ story, like most others, is a HOAX”. Full post “Axios just released a story that “Trump” offered Sanctions Relief and Frozen Funds to Iran. This is untrue. I offered them NOTHING! Axios’ story, like most others, is a HOAX, used only for purposes of satisfying their Trump Derangement Syndrome. They should withdraw this fake story, IMMEDIATELY!”.

Authored by Travis Gillmore via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Sept. 29 directing all federal agencies to integrate services with a new website designed to make it easier for users to find information and interact with the government.

He described the tool as “one of the most revolutionary product launches of all time.”

America.gov will serve as a landing page consolidating nearly 30,000 federal government websites into one chatbot, powered by SpaceX’s Grok and Google’s Gemini. The site allows users to ask questions and receive guidance about procuring services.

“The federal government no longer stands in your way, and it stands only at your service,” Trump said.

“We’re simplifying it. We’re glamorizing it. We’re making it what it should be.”

Plans for full integration with more than 10,000 forms across agencies will provide opportunities for full-service enrollment, where visitors can “apply, enroll, and track progress directly in the chat,” according to a statement on the new site.

Users will find a “front door” to the government replacing the “endless maze” of websites and regulations, according to the president.

“It’s not just simply a website. It’s a restoration of America’s founding promises, and it’s a reinvention of your government for the 21st century and beyond,” Trump said. “We’re putting power and control back into the hands of the people, right where it belongs.”

Once complete, Americans can request replacement Social Security cards, apply for passports and name changes, and access countless other government services.

“And with this, nobody can any longer complain about providing proof of citizenship or voter ID,” Trump said, while calling for lawmakers to pass the SAVE America Act, which would mandate proof of citizenship to register and IDs to vote. “They’re always saying it’s too complicated. It’s not complicated anymore.”

Privacy is built into the system, no login is required, the site does not track visitors, and no personal information or conversations are recorded, according to administration officials.

Preventing data leaks and hacks is a priority, Trump said during his address, noting rapid advancement in technology and potential threats while touting security precautions against any attempts to infiltrate the system.

Visitors can type queries into the text box, mirroring modern AI interfaces. The chatbot can also translate three spoken languages – English, Spanish, and French – with more additions coming soon.

While the technology is built on artificial intelligence platforms, the president is proposing a universal name change for the innovation, suggesting that super intelligence, or SI, is superior to the “artificial” alternative.

Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, the nation’s first chief design officer, revealed the website to the public in a product-demo style presentation at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium in the nation’s capital.

“There was a time when Americans entered great public buildings to meet our government, and when they did, the spaces achieved a user experience unlike anything else,” Gebbia said, noting the impact of architectural design and grand rooms that communicated “dignity and respect” to all who entered.

“America.gov carries that idea into the age of super intelligence to reimagine a government built around you that respects your time, that works for you, that we can be proud of as Americans.”

Approximately 39 million Americans visit federal government websites every day, collectively spending more than 10 billion hours annually on government-related paperwork, according to administration officials.

The website is live as of Sept. 29, with more features expected in the coming months.

The Senate on Sept. 28 passed a bill that seeks to bring stability to the rapidly changing landscape of collegiate sports, sending it to the House of Representatives.

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 passed on a 77-22 vote. The bill aims to address growing concerns surrounding athlete compensation, transfer rules, conference realignment, and long-term athlete protections. Since the House is out of session, it is unlikely to vote on the bill until after the November midterm elections.

In a Truth Social post, President Donald Trump called the Senate’s passage of the bill “a really big deal.”

“It will not only save college sports, it will save the colleges themselves,” he said.

Under the legislation, the NCAA would be exempt from antitrust laws, and there would be a nationwide standard for name, image, and likeness (NIL) rules that would override the current patchwork of state laws.

As Jackson Richman reports further for The Epoch Times,The bill would allow student-athletes to use five seasons of eligibility within a five-year window and limit athletes to one transfer during their college careers. Division I schools would also be required to honor scholarships for up to 10 years after an athlete’s final season.

Additionally, it would revise the Sports Broadcasting Act, allowing athletic conferences to pool television rights.

Another major component of the bill is player health and safety provisions.

Division I schools would be required to cover out-of-pocket medical costs for sports-related injuries both during participation and for five years after an athlete’s final competition.

The legislation would mandate catastrophic injury coverage, access to second opinions, and post-career physical examinations, and establish a $60 million medical trust fund from the NCAA’s coffers to assist smaller schools and athletes with long-term medical conditions.

The bill would also create an independent office within college athletics to provide confidential, free guidance to student-athletes and help resolve disputes involving schools, conferences, or athletic associations.

College football coaches would be prohibited from leaving midseason to take on another college football coaching job. This provision came after Lane Kiffin left his role as head coach of the University of Mississippi football team in November 2025 to take the same title at Louisiana State University.

Under the measure, at least one-third of governing boards or rulemaking committees within athletic associations would be required to consist of current or former student-athletes.

The bill also targets what lawmakers describe as abuses within the NIL system. It would ban compensation arrangements intended to bypass revenue-sharing limits or disguise pay-for-play incentives while preserving legitimate education- and athletics-related benefits established under the House settlement framework.

Under the House v. NCAA settlement, Division I athletes are eligible to receive a share of up to $20.5 million in school-generated revenue, with that cap expected to increase over time. The settlement also included nearly $2.8 billion in back pay for athletes who competed between 2016 and 2024.

The Protect College Sports Act would extend the revenue-sharing cap beyond the expiration of the House settlement after the 2034-35 academic year while allowing annual inflation adjustments.

The measure would create a bipartisan congressional commission to study the long-term future of college athletics, including athlete compensation, Olympic and women’s sports, spending limits, health and safety standards, agent regulations, and the overall structure of college sports.

One unresolved issue in college athletics is whether student-athletes should be classified as employees of their schools.

The new legislation does not take a position. Congress has previously attempted to address the issue through measures such as the SCORE Act and SAFE Act. The House had planned to vote on the SCORE Act in May, but the vote was canceled amid concerns about insufficient support. That proposal would prevent student-athletes from being classified as employees.

Moreover, the legislation would prohibit certain large-revenue conferences, such as the Southeastern Conference and the Atlantic Coast Conference, from consolidating with or acquiring other conferences. It would limit the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC to 19 schools. Any school from these conferences that changes to another conference would need to operate independently for three years. This provision would sunset in six years.

The bill has the support of the major conferences such as the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, and others.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who introduced the bill with Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said the bill is necessary to bring sanity to college sports.

“The Protect College Sports Act is bipartisan legislation designed to bring order to the chaos, designed to put simple, common-sense rules in place so that college sports remain strong and vibrant for decades to come,” Cruz said at a press conference on Sept. 14.

Cantwell said at the press conference, “This is about reining in the bad practices that are happening in college sports today, the runaway costs that are sending people to the state legislature, asking for bailout from taxpayers to pay for sports, asking people to take endowment funds that really should go to things like wheat research or AI, and instead have to be spent because of the runaway arms race in sports spending.”

Most importantly, the bill has the support of President Donald Trump.

“The alternative just is no good. … We have to get it voted on, and we’re counting on the House – and I think the House will come through, too,” the president told political commentator Clay Travis in an interview on Sept. 26.

Opposition to the bill has come from the NAACP and some Democrats.

“We recognize that the bill contains provisions concerning scholarships, healthcare, athlete agents, safety standards, and student-athlete representation,” the NAACP’s president and CEO, Derrick Johnson, wrote in an Aug. 4 letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

“College athletes deserve those protections. They should not, however, be used as political cover for provisions that insulate institutions and conferences from legal and economic accountability.“

In a speech on the Senate floor on Sept. 16, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) disagreed with those who advocate for the bill.

“It’s not about the safety, it’s not about the well-being, it’s not about the education of college athletes,” he said. “This is a money play, plain and simple.”

Update (1516ET): The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations and agreed to hear the underlying dispute this winter.

In a brief emergency-docket order in DHS v. D.V.D., the justices stayed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s Feb. 25 judgment, which had blocked the Department of Homeland Security from sending people with final removal orders to countries not named in those orders unless they first received notice and a chance to raise persecution or torture claims.

The stay puts the First Circuit’s Sept. 18 ruling on hold and lets DHS restart removals under its March 2025 guidance while the case proceeds.

The Court also treated the government’s application as a petition for review and granted certiorari. Argument is set for the December 2026 sitting. The stay lasts until the Court issues its final judgment.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay.

The order is the Court’s third intervention in the same litigation. It previously paused Murphy’s preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025, and clarified on July 3, 2025, that the pause applied in full – including a flight the administration sought to send to South Sudan after it was diverted to a U.S. base in Djibouti.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court last week that the First Circuit’s late-night dissolution of its own stay had thrown removal operations into chaos, including cancellation of a flight carrying about 70 deportees – some with criminal convictions – to three countries.

DHS counsel James Percival has said more than 25,000 people have already been removed under the program. Rights groups put the figure at more than 25,000 people sent to about 29 countries, many of them to Mexico.

The justices directed briefing on whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur are allowed under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), and whether the third-country guidance is unlawful under the removal statute, the Due Process Clause, or CAT/FARRA.

Tuesday’s order does not decide those questions. It restores the policy for now and tees them up for a full hearing.

* * *

The Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 24 to revive its third-country deportation program that sends deportees to countries that were not named in their removal orders.

The Trump administration has said it removes individuals to third countries when it cannot quickly return them to their home countries.

However, critics say the policy is used to bypass legal restrictions and deter illegal immigration.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allows immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.

The Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the program twice on its emergency docket.

As Matthew Vadum further reports via The Epoch Times, following Supreme Court rules, the application is addressed to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson because she oversees emergency appeals from decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

However, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the unusual step of asking Jackson to refer the stay request to the full court instead of ruling on it herself if she will not freeze the lower court’s order.

Jackson voted against the government both times when the litigation previously came before the high court.

Sauer said lower court decisions were throwing into chaos the delicate arrangements the government has negotiated with other nations to take in deportees who are not their citizens.

“Third-country removals require careful negotiation with foreign governments, which are rarely enthusiastic about accepting foreign citizens (especially criminals), and often requires obtaining travel documents and devoting significant manpower to the staging of flights to protect government officers and flight crews,” he said.

Disrupting those plans “imposes massive costs on the government,” and forces it to engage in new instances of diplomatic engagement with countries “who may be all the more skeptical of our removal efforts given the disruption.”

The filing concerns a First Circuit ruling from Sept. 18 that struck down DHS guidance allowing removal based on diplomatic assurances that receiving countries will not persecute or torture people sent to them.

The three-judge panel raised concerns about “blanket assurances” from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won’t be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.

The panel affirmed the final judgment U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued Feb. 25 vacating the DHS guidance. In its Sept. 18 decision, it affirmed the striking down of the policy.

Murphy previously certified the respondents, who are people with final removal orders, as a nationwide class.

The respondents argue that the government may deport a removable noncitizen to a willing third country, but not without inquiring about whether the person would be persecuted or tortured in that country.

The case is known as DHS v. D.V.D.

On Sept. 24, Jackson did not respond to Sauer’s request. Instead, she directed the other side to file a response to the application by 4 p.m. on Sept. 28.

Authored by Tom Wilson via the Mises Institute,

California has a strange relationship with business. Its lawmakers seem determined to make doing business more expensive, yet companies continue to operate there. Taxes rise, regulations accumulate, and new compliance requirements are added, but California remains home to some of the most successful companies in the world. That raises a question more interesting than whether California is “business friendly.” Why do businesses continue to stay – and how far can the state push them before they finally decide the benefits of California are no longer worth the cost?

Adam Smith understood part of the answer long before California became an economic powerhouse. In The Wealth of Nations, he explained that the division of labor is limited by the extent of the market. California offers businesses an enormous and highly-developed market. Its ports connect them to the world, its universities and industries provide specialized labor, and decades of accumulated capital and expertise create opportunities that aren’t easily duplicated elsewhere. Silicon Valley wasn’t built overnight, and neither were California’s entertainment, agriculture, and international trade networks. Those advantages help explain why businesses tolerate costs in California that they might never accept in a smaller or less developed market. But California shouldn’t mistake an advantage for immunity.

Some businesses have already decided those advantages are no longer enough. Tesla moved its headquarters to Texas. Chevron – a company with roots in California stretching back more than a century – moved its headquarters to Houston. Oracle moved its headquarters from California to Austin. These aren’t struggling companies desperately searching for somewhere cheaper to survive. They are enormously successful businesses with the resources to operate almost anywhere. Their departures don’t prove that California’s economy is collapsing. They demonstrate something more important: even California’s considerable economic advantages have a price.

A business doesn’t have to leave California for California to lose. A company headquartered in Los Angeles can keep its offices there while building its next warehouse, factory, or distribution center in Arizona, Nevada, or Texas. No headline announces another company fleeing the state. The investment simply lands somewhere else. Multiply that decision across thousands of companies making thousands of quiet calls each year, and it may matter more than any single high-profile departure.

One bill now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk offers a good example of the direction California continues to take. AB 2599 would require certain large companies with sufficiently old corporate roots to search historical records for connections to slavery and report what they find to the state. Whatever one thinks of the goal, those records won’t search themselves. Someone has to locate them, attorneys have to determine what must be disclosed, and employees have to ensure the company complies. For a corporation with billions in revenue, that expense alone is unlikely to send it running for the Texas border. But that is precisely the point. If Newsom signs the bill, it becomes another requirement, another expense, and another reason for a business to consider making its next investment somewhere else.

California’s strength can mask this. Silicon Valley doesn’t vanish because of one more regulation, the ports don’t relocate to Nevada, and Hollywood isn’t rebuilt in Austin overnight. That durability can convince lawmakers businesses will tolerate almost anything. But Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and Tennessee don’t need to match everything California offers – they only need to close the gap enough that lower costs start to win. Workforces can be trained, capital can move, and networks can form elsewhere. California didn’t earn a permanent lease on its advantages; it just got there first.

This helps explain why businesses haven’t abandoned California. Its markets, access to trade, skilled labor, capital, and generations of accumulated economic activity still provide enormous advantages. But those advantages shouldn’t be confused with permanence. Every new tax, mandate, and compliance requirement asks businesses to calculate once again whether California is worth the price. Some have already answered no. Others continue to stay. The question California’s lawmakers should be asking isn’t how much more businesses can afford to pay. It’s how many times they can raise the price of staying before more businesses decide to build their future somewhere else.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded Tesla an “Electric Fan Car” patent less than three weeks before the Tesla Roadster 2.0 reveal.

The USPTO filing illustrates four electric ducted fans positioned side by side in the rear diffuser and states that the system is designed to “increase downforce and reduce drag.”

“The achievable speed around corners, and stability during braking, of a road vehicle can often be limited by a measure of downforce, or vertical downward force, available on the vehicle. Downforce can help improve grip around corners and stability during braking. Therefore, a vehicle can achieve increased speed through corners and better stability during deceleration with an improved means of creating downforce,” the filing continued.

The filing also describes the new system as driver-activated or, in some configurations, automatically controlled.

Last month, a report said the redesigned Roadster would have limited “flying” capabilities.

EV blog Electrek pointed out, “Somebody at Tesla was clearly working on a track-focused Model S in 2023. That car is dead, and the idea has nowhere to go but the Roadster. Between this, last year’s skirt

Authored by Arthur Zhang via The Epoch Times,

The United States and China have released product lists covering about $30 billion in imports in each direction that could receive lower tariffs under an agreement reached after Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington.

The lists cover 77 categories of Chinese goods entering the United States and 1,619 categories of U.S. goods entering China.

Here are five takeaways from the agreement.

Limited Category of Trade Covered

The arrangement covers goods the two countries have designated as “non-sensitive,” totaling about $60 billion in two-way trade based on 2024 values.

The U.S. list includes toys, fireworks, blankets, tableware, artificial flowers, child safety seats, and holiday decorations. China’s list includes agricultural products, seafood, timber, personal-care products, medical equipment, and coal.

Products outside the two approved lists are not covered by this tariff-reduction arrangement.

A Work in Progress

Publication of the lists does not itself lower tariffs.

The two sides have approved the product lists, but future tariff reductions must still go through each country’s domestic legal procedures.

China’s Commerce Ministry said on Sept. 28 that the two governments would implement the reductions simultaneously after completing those procedures.

No effective date has been announced.

US Commercial Soybeans Excluded

China’s list includes a wide range of U.S. agricultural products, including wheat, corn, sorghum, meat, seafood, and dairy products.

Ordinary commercial soybeans are not on the list.

It does include soybeans specifically for cultivation, as well as soybean oil, soybean meal, and some other soybean-derived products.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sept. 23 that Beijing had met its soybean-purchase commitment for this year but was behind schedule on purchases of other U.S. agricultural products.

‘Most-Favored-Nation’ Rate for Most Covered Goods

China’s Commerce Ministry said more than 90 percent of the products covered by the arrangement would have the additional tariffs imposed by the two sides removed.

Those goods would instead face each country’s standard tariff rate, known in international trade as the “most-favored-nation” rate.

Trade Truce Extended by 2 Months

The product-list arrangement does not settle the broader U.S.-China trade dispute.

The two countries separately extended their existing trade truce by two months, moving its expiration from Nov. 10 to Jan. 10.

Bessent said on Sept. 23 that he was unsure whether the two sides could reach a broader agreement. He said Chinese negotiators had proposed a larger deal and that Washington was open either to continuing the existing arrangement or examining a broader one.

Summary: 

• US DoE Offers 40 Million Barrels From SPR 
• IEA Head Says SPR On Standby If Energy Crisis Deepens 
• EU Eyes Methane Rule Retreat As Energy Crisis Deepens; IEA Floats Another Emergency Oil Dump

IEA Head “Ready To Act”; US DoE Offers 40 Million Barrels From SPR

Brent crude futures moved lower to $103.90 a barrel, supported by continued diplomatic efforts and the resumption of flows through Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline. Kpler data from the weekend showed that oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz reached 13 million barrels a day, about two-thirds of the prewar level.

 Courtesy of Commodity Context … 

Speaking to reporters at a meeting of EU energy ministers in Dublin, IEA head Fatih Birol said another emergency SPR dump remains on standby should the energy crisis become “much bigger” and more prolonged.

Birol said one-third of the 400 million-barrel release announced in March, shortly after the US-Iran conflict erupted, has yet to hit the market. He said around 80% of overall stocks remain available.

“If there is a need, and if our member countries do agree with it, we are ready to act in order to address current and future market challenges,” he said.

A separate Bloomberg News report said the US Energy Department requested an exchange of up to 40 million barrels of oil from the SPR. The release is part of a much larger plan to dump 172 million barrels of oil from the SPR onto the market to tame crude prices amid supply disruptions at the Hormuz chokepoint.

Such a drawdown would put the SPR at levels not seen since the early 1980s. The current level stands at around 285 million barrels.

Goldman Energy analyst Nikhil Bhandari warned last week that an ongoing global refining crisis could strain the fuel market well into 2027 (read the report). 

EU Eyes Methane Rule Retreat As Energy Crisis Deepens; IEA Floats Another Emergency Oil Dump

The European Union is considering postponing methane emissions requirements for imported oil and gas to help boost energy supplies, with the Northern Hemisphere winter just months away. Energy prices in the bloc are already soaring, and uncomfortably low supplies of diesel and natural gas could push them even higher. The energy-stricken continent faces a difficult balancing act as it fights for its energy security.

Reuters quoted EU Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen as saying the bloc could delay the methane emissions provisions by a year, which are scheduled to take effect at the start of next year. The rules require foreign producers supplying Europe to monitor and report methane emissions. 

The big concern is that compliance risks and potential penalties could discourage suppliers from sending fuel to Europe just as governments panic-search to secure winter supplies. Disruptions linked to the war in Ukraine and Iran have disrupted supplies of avaiable crude and crude products. 

“I have instructed my services… to look into possibilities of postponing the part that has to do with imports,” Jorgensen told reporters at a meeting of EU energy ministers in Dublin.

The potential withdrawal of the new methane emissions rule comes as the International Energy Agency weighs another strategic oil reserves dump to cap crude oil prices from rising further – just as China re-enters. 

“We are following the markets very closely, especially the product markets, diesel and others. If there is a need, of course, we will discuss with our member governments to take the necessary steps,” IEA head Fatih Birol told reporters in Dublin ahead of a meeting of EU energy ministers.

Fatih Birol

UBS markets analyst Nana Antiedu commented earlier today on the ongoing disruption to the global refining market: 

Since the July update, UBS Evidence Lab’s refining project tracker shows disruptions across global refining have intensified, driven by the Strait of Hormuz situation and further attacks on Russian refineries. 

Around 11% of global refining capacity was offline during August, typically the lightest month of the year for maintenance. European refining margins set a new all-time high at $50/bbl. As the industry enters the autumn maintenance season, energy analyst Anna Kishmariya estimates offline capacity should remain above 11Mb/d through at least October, absent a recovery in Middle Eastern product flows. 

She raises the estimate of capacity requiring repairs exceeding two months to about 2.3Mb/d. The key focus remains the potential US product export ban. Given US exports account for over 20% of the global diesel export market, Anna does not believe the market could absorb another major supply disruption. While not her base case, this remains the key upside risk to margins.

Brent prices reversed earlier amid conflicting messaging on US-Iran negotiations, continued flows through the Hormuz chokepoint and renewed flows through Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline. Recall last week that Goldman warned a global refining nightmare could extend well into 2027 (read report). 

Authored by AG News Staff via American Greatness,

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow the Bureau of Prisons to enforce restrictions on medical interventions and social accommodations for transgender federal inmates while a legal challenge continues.

The Justice Department’s emergency request follows a lower court order blocking the policy for inmates diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

Under the Bureau of Prisons policy, inmates would continue to have access to mental health services, but the government would not provide hormone therapy, surgeries or accommodations such as chest binders, wigs and breast padding.

The legal fight began after President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the Bureau of Prisons to revise its policies and prohibit federal funds from being spent on medical procedures, treatments or drugs intended to make an inmate’s appearance conform to the opposite sex.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the new Bureau of Prisons policy in June, finding in part that it had been “reverse engineered” to carry out Trump’s executive order. Lamberth ordered the government to continue providing previously available treatments to affected inmates.

The Justice Department appealed, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit declined earlier this month to let the administration enforce the policy while the case proceeds.

The administration is now asking the Supreme Court to intervene.

In its emergency filing, the Justice Department accused the district court of “substituting its own policy judgment for that of the agency.“

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that prison officials determined the restrictions were “necessary to maintain institutional security” and said the lower court’s ruling prevents the executive branch from carrying out its chosen policy.

Jefferies is once again the first major Wall Street firm to report its quarter, and once again the story is of two very different banks under one roof: a trading and banking franchise running near record highs, and an asset-management arm that keeps finding new ways to lose money on receivables that may or may not exist.

The good news first. In the fiscal third quarter ended August 31, Jefferies reported EPS of $1.08, beating the $1.00 consensus (core EPS of $1.08 also beat Goldman’s $1.03 and the Street’s $1.01). Core pre-tax income came in 9% ahead of the Street, driven by:

• Equities trading: $626 million, up 29% YoY and a record, helped by cash, electronic trading and prime services (i.e., hedge funds levering up into the AI melt-up).
• Investment banking: $1.3 billion, up 17%, with advisory up 25% (also a record) and equity underwriting up 69%.
• Fixed income trading: the laggard, with net revenue down 26% in what the bank called a sluggish market.

And then there’s the asset-management unit, where net revenue fell to $85.6 million from almost $177 million a year earlier. That’s a 52% drop, and it comes from the same two names that have been following Jefferies around for a year: First Brands and Radiant World, both held through Leucadia Asset Management’s Point Bonita trade-finance fund.

The stock fell 1.1% in early trading, taking the YTD decline past 25%. That is a strange reaction to a record quarter, unless you remember how the last twelve months have gone.

Goldman: Buy… with a 15% lower price target

Goldman’s James Yaro headlined his overnight note “Equities trading and expense beat, outlook and momentum remain largely the same.” That is sell-side for “fine, nothing to see here,” and Goldman does expect “a slightly constructive response to results.” Look closer, though, and the note is a good deal less relaxed than the title.

First, the good parts, per Goldman:

• Equities: A second consecutive record at $626MM, 10%/14% ahead of GSe/Street, “with strength across all products, especially in prime.”
• Advisory: Record quarterly revenue, “in part driven by a sponsor recovery, as well as broad-based share gains across sectors.”
• Margins: A core pre-tax margin of 15.8%, about 150bps above consensus, thanks to a non-comp ratio about 145bps below the Street.
• Buybacks: 1.3MM shares repurchased in the quarter.

Now the less good parts, starting with the quality of the beat:

• The banking beat is the volatile kind. It “was primarily driven by other investment banking ($31mn vs. GSe/consensus at $5mn/11mn), the most volatile of JEF’s IBanking business.” Underwriting actually missed by 3%. ECM came in 4% short of the Street, even while growing 69% YoY, so expectations were running even hotter than the deal flow.
• Some of the expense discipline is really just shrinkage. A portion “likely relates to merchant banking wind-downs, which appear to have been larger than anticipated in terms of both revenue and expenses.” Jefferies is spending less partly because there is less business left to spend on.
• FICC missed badly: 18% below the Street and 15% below Goldman.

And then there is asset management, where the headline number actually understates the damage. Strip out merchant banking and Jefferies’ core asset-management revenue was just $13 million, against Goldman’s $38MM estimate and the Street’s $36MM. That’s a 66%/64% miss, “primarily driven by lower investment returns.” In response, Goldman cut its 2026E/27E/28E asset management revenue by 22%/11%/6%.

Goldman’s rating is still Buy, but look at what it did to valuation. The bank (full report here) cut its target multiple by 2.5x to 11.0x and its 12-month price target by ~15%, from $67 to $57, even as its 2026 EPS estimate rose 2%. It also offered a telling explanation for the stock’s persistent discount: “we believe that the market discounts the multiples assigned to these businesses, given their volatility.” Put simply, even when Jefferies beats, investors won’t pay up for the kinds of earnings it produces.

The chart in the Goldman note shows the result: JEF is down 29.4% over twelve months, and 39.4% behind the S&P 500. The stock peaked just as First Brands was about to blow up and has spent the year since trailing the market.

Vital Knowledge’s Adam Crisafulli gave the quarter a fitting grade: “Not amazing, not horrible.” He also questioned how long the equities boom can last, which is a reasonable question when the entire Street is printing record equities revenue on the same trade.

The wider read-across is positive for the rest of the Street’s equity desks. BofA’s Brian Moynihan said earlier this month that equity trading was up in the quarter through mid-September, and Goldman’s David Solomon said equities remained “very strong.” In FICC, BofA warned that revenue was down and “bouncing around,” and Jefferies’ -26% suggests that was an understatement.

The cockroach problem

Management kept the upbeat tone. CEO Rich Handler and President Brian Friedman said they “remain confident in the long-term outlook” for asset management as they “reposition the platform by reducing capital allocated to certain existing funds.” In other words, Point Bonita is being wound down. The plan is to put the capital into Hildene, the credit manager Jefferies agreed in December 2025 to buy 50% of, alongside Hildene’s $550 million purchase of annuity writer SILAC. Replacing a trade-finance fund that blew up on receivables with a credit shop that owns an insurer is one way to diversify, at least.

As a reminder of how we got here:

• First Brands. When the auto-parts roll-up collapsed into bankruptcy in the fall of 2025, it turned out that Point Bonita, which once managed roughly $3 billion, had about a quarter of its assets tied to First Brands receivables (around $715 million, per Jefferies’ own October 2025 update). The DOJ then opened a probe into what we called First Brands’ “shocking bankruptcy” (Oct 2025). A week later, Jamie Dimon’s “when you see one cockroach, there are probably more” line became the market’s official slogan, and JEF crashed more than 10% in a single session as regional banks crashed as more credit “cockroaches” emerged (Oct 16, 2025).
   
• Market Financial Solutions. Then, in February, Jefferies was again scrambling to recover what it could (Feb 27, 2026) after the collapse of UK bridging lender MFS, where we noted that “Banco Santander and Jefferies – both of which sank in the First Brands swamp” were once more in the line of fire.

Here We Go Again: Billions Vaporized In Spectacular Private Credit Collapse https://t.co/y5jPVUmrOT

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 27, 2026

• Radiant World. This is the latest one, and it is the ugliest. Radiant is a Singapore iron-ore trader that bought receivables from counterparties like Glencore and Vitol and financed them through banks and funds, including – drumroll – Point Bonita. In August, Hedgeweek reported that payments to the fund had “slowed,” and several commodity houses stopped trading with Radiant over questions about its invoices. Jefferies was said to believe the underlying trades “remain legitimate.”

That view lasted about a month. Since then:

• Sep 5: Jefferies’ LAM Trade Finance fund won a UK freezing order against Radiant, founder Pinkesh Nahar, and affiliate Sapphire Minmetals. Parallel orders followed in Hong Kong and Singapore.
• Sep 8-9: The fund formally accused Radiant of fraud in a $500 million claim, alleging the iron-ore receivables “either did not exist or were not validly assigned.”
• Sep 17: Radiant disclosed that it had about $10,000 in cash, compared with audited financials showing more than $200 million. Somewhere, an auditor is updating their LinkedIn.
• Sep 19: Radiant sued Glencore for $2 billion in Singapore, which is an interesting move for a company with $10K in the bank. Glencore has reportedly already taken a $480 million provision and told Mizuho that Radiant sent it a fake Glencore email about repaying a $95.5 million loan.
• Sep 24-25: KPMG was appointed interim judicial manager, a Singapore judge questioned Radiant’s claimed $1 billion of receivables, and Bloomberg reported that Singapore police had received a fraud report months before the crisis, with Intesa Sanpaolo apparently suspicious of the invoices before anyone else.

Then there is the question of how much Jefferies actually has at risk. Bloomberg has put Jefferies’ exposure at “less than $300 million.” But according to a creditor schedule the founder submitted to the court, Jefferies is Radiant’s largest creditor at $353 million, well ahead of Intesa ($238MM), Deutsche Bank ($103MM) and Mizuho ($97MM), out of $870 million total. The fraud claim filed by the fund is for $500 million. Pick a number.

Bottom line

For the rest of the Street, the Jefferies print is good news: equities are booming, the ECM window is wide open, advisory is at records, and backlogs are “broad and strong” (“very optimistic about the balance of 2026 and our momentum heading into 2027,” per Handler and Friedman). JPM’s Market Intel desk, which this morning went back to “Tactically Bullish,” said that outside of AI plays it favors banks, given “the growth reboot, potentially steeper yield curve, and favorable capital markets outlook.”

For Jefferies itself, the market is saying something different. The stock is down more than 25% YTD and nearly 30% over twelve months despite record trading and advisory. Goldman’s Buy rating now sits on a price target 15% lower and on a multiple that assumes investors will keep charging a volatility discount. Goldman even lists “a much longer timeframe to wind down the merchant bank” among its downside risks.

After First Brands, MFS, and now an iron-ore trader with $10,000 in its account and a fake Glencore email, the market isn’t asking whether there are more cockroaches. It’s asking where the next one is.