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.

By Molly Schwarz, cross-asset macro strategist at Rabobank

Iran is feeling some of the economic pressure of Bessent’s “Operation Economic Outcast” with reports from Al-Hadath suggesting that Iran has agreed to halt uranium enrichment in exchange for the relaxing of US sanctions. This, of course, is the uranium that Iran was apparently never enriching, and even if they were enriching it in facilities that no one is allowed to check, it would only be for peaceful purposes. Pinky promise.

But, should these reports be verified, this could suggest some meaningful steps in the right direction to start to ease military and economic pressures in the Middle East. Total regime change in Iran is likely off the table, but convincing the current regime in Iran to give up on its goal of obtaining a nuclear weapon is…unlikely. A “compromise” where Iran pretends to stop enriching Uranium, and gets some economic relief in the process, and the US has an out where the GOP can save some face, right before the midterms, could mean end game. However, this all necessitates that the Al-Hadath headline is legitimate, that Iranian officials stand by their word, and that the US agrees to such conditions.

But markets were happy to digest whatever positive news they could, with Brent crude oil dropping around $4 on the announcement to $105/bbl. Despite the retracement in oil, yields still made their way higher, with the 2-year trading back up to 4.92%, and the 10-year up to 5.23%, after briefly breaking above 5.25%. Some talks are circulating about potential re-inversion of the US yield curve, as traders price in more hikes in the short end (17.5bp at the October meeting, and 94.6bp by July of 2027), but a look at the current spread of 32bp suggests that there’s still some way to go before reinversion becomes dinner-table talk.

Stablecoin has also made its way back into US-Senate headlines, after the Senate failed to pass the CLARITY Act a few weeks ago. However, the recent headline suggests that the passage of the CLARITY Act might also be farther off than originally thought. On Monday, the US Senate subcommittee on investigations released a 28-page report cleverly titled “Tethered to Terrorism” which highlighted findings that Tether stablecoin had been used by the Iranian regime to evade sanctions and fund its proxy groups throughout the Middle East. Much of the fear surrounding stablecoin and other cryptocurrencies is the lack of traceability and the ability to use it for nefarious transactions. Which reminds me of an interesting proposition: imagine that instead of digital banking transactions, we instead printed physical cash, that could be circulated both domestically and internationally, without ever leaving a documented online trail that the cops nor the IRS could easily follow? Think about the millions of dollars of taxes that could be evaded and all the black market transactions that could take place…crazy, right?

The Financial Times reports that “EU countries are considering NATO-style joint responses to Russian hybrid attacks.” Hybrid attacks—those that include both physical and online warfare—were flagged recently by Danish intelligence, suggesting that their frequency, including those against NATO members, could increase in the coming months. But mobilizing 27 member-countries to go to war, when they can’t even agree on whether to sanction Russian gas or not, is easier said than done. One unnamed, but brilliant EU diplomat said “I’m not sure that anyone thinks the way to fight back against the Russians is to hold more meetings.” While wise in theory, holding meetings is what the EU does best. Defense ministers were invited to discuss the proposals yesterday.

The US and China agreed to extend their trade truce to January 10 to lift tariffs on USD 60 billion of “non-sensitive goods,” with each country receiving USD 30 billion of preferential trade status on their respective exports. Non-sensitive goods may or may not include military arms, apparently, as the US ambassador to China, David Perdue, said that Trump offered to sell arms to China. In the realm of national security, it’s not a great idea to be reliant on your adversaries for weapons. But, in the case of the US, exporting weapons to your adversaries might be good business—notwithstanding that US law prohibits arms sales to China. Nor what happens if American (or Taiwanese) troops find themselves staring down the barrel of an M16. Unless, as part of the arms deal, China pinky promises to only use them for peaceful purposes. It should be noted that the White House has denied all claims of Trump making such an offer, and Xi’s response to this offer has not been revealed.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times,

When Elon Musk took over Twitter, fired four out of five employees, and rebranded it X (just because he thought it sounded cool), the talking heads predicted doom for the company. The opposite happened. It is now one of the most popular sources of news in the world, and a major delivery system for what social media is supposed to be.

He always had more in mind. He explained at the outset that he wanted to turn X into the “everything app.” I winced when I heard those words. As someone who worked in web development for years, I learned to regard every promise of a “one-stop shop” to be foolish. It never happens. Best to pick one thing you do well and stick with it.

To my own amazement, X is indeed taking steps toward being the Everything App. Not yet, of course, but the advent of his X Money platform is major and serious. It is being rolled out gradually to premium members. Under the new content-creators payout program, people are paid within the app and invited to use the service for transferring money.

Described thusly, it would seem to be another version of Zelle or Venmo and therefore not that much to notice, much less celebrate. But when you look at the details of what X Money is doing, another reality emerges. It would appear that this app is making a move on the banks themselves.

The evidence is on the app now. It offers a way to link your paycheck to X Money to enjoy a quicker payout than if your paycheck flows to your bank account. Speed is one thing, and a good thing, but why else would you do this?

The key comes in the details which have not been advertised (Musk doesn’t like old-style marketing). These are not regular dormant cash accounts like you get in a regular checking account. They pay a return. Not just any return. The return is higher than you would otherwise get in a normal money market.

For now the Annual Percent Yield (APY) is an eye-popping 6 percent as an initial customer-acquisition rate.

Not only that, the X Money card that comes digitally with the service (and physically on the ask) offers fully 3 percent cash back.

A high rate plus instant peer-to-peer transmission, a metal Visa card with 3 percent cash back, and early direct deposit is meant to pull balances and daily activity onto the platform.

What you notice from these terms is that this goes way beyond a mere money-transmission service. What’s being provided here, with quick and easy signups, is a highly lucrative vehicle for serious investment. Put your cash in and have it earn 6 percent. That beats inflation. With 3 percent cash back, you are way ahead of the game. That is reason enough to switch.

As a user I immediately found myself in a bind. Initially I thought I would enjoy spending my X Money on groceries and movie tickets or something along those lines. But with this level of earning power, I will lose money if I do that. I would be forgoing the return from the money held. Better to use the cash in my bank or my credit card that also pays 3 percent cash back.

The calculation here favors keeping the money in X Money, not spending it. Indeed, the calculator favors moving cash from banks into X Money and earning the return. To be sure, that 6 percent could change in a year or two or three. It would be up to how the app is managed.

Meanwhile, do you understand what this means? It means an actual reward for … saving money! Imagine that. Cash that earns a return on an app that allows peer-to-peer transfer at zero cost. This is disruptive innovation of the sort we’ve come to expect from this man and his companies.

Elon has designated the X Money app for now to be a loss leader in direct revenue but a huge investment in becoming what he likely thinks it can be in the long run: an actual option to the banks.

There might even be more afoot here. The banking rails themselves are provided by Cross River Bank. Founded in 2008, the bank carved out a special niche in working with new digital companies that focus on in-app service provision and edgier products like cryptocurrency. It is FDIC-insured but eschews traditional banking in favor of innovation. Even with its smaller capitalization, it is an ideal partner for a disruptive technology like X Money.

Recall too that Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal. It was started with a high hope of developing a new form of money transmission and even a new form of money. It eventually found itself regulated out of that vision to become what it is today, which is a highly valued means of payment for the digital age.

X Money seems to learn from mistakes made in those days to build out fully banking services from the very foundation. With the inclusion of crypto as part of the banking rails, we can easily imagine a future in which X Money integrates with a service like Coinbase to move money from dollars to crypto and back again.

One thing that is notable to me is the effortlessness of the signups and verifications. The developers have learned that customers recoil at too many screens, too much language, too many aggressive demands for passwords and accounts. They are using the latest technology to make signups and management extremely easy and clean.

That said, X Money does of course comply with all the arduous federal regulations concerning Know Your Customer laws and tax-reporting requirements. This is by no means an app that places a premium on your privacy. Even to make it work requires government IDs and 3D facial scans from our phone. I despise all of that while also understanding that this is the price any financial entrepreneur pays to make anything innovative these days. X Money is compliant across the board, which, from my point of view, is unavoidably regrettable.

It’s entirely possible that Elon has a big vision for this platform that he has not yet shared. Indeed, I’m struck by how much of the system that he has built so far has not been advertised at all. It’s extremely interesting how the rollout is going. The app presents direct information to the customer screen by screen, the pitch, the conditions, the advantages. Normal advertising speaks to the masses; Elon’s way is to speak to the individual user. It’s very different.

We can imagine two polar opposite futures with this new service.

Optimistically, it becomes the innovator of a new form of money and monetary services that eventually replaces paper money and even the dollar.

Remember that the app is global. What if the assets of X and other companies emerge as the asset baking of a new form of currency?

Pessimistically, X Money becomes just another new layer of the emergent financial control grid that spies on us and even worse: the integration of money and social media reminds one of China’s Social Credit System. This future sometimes feels baked into the technologies we use and the deep relationship of tech companies and the government.

Which will it be? We do not know. But from what I can see, there is a strong rationale for expecting this platform to be a major player and going concern in the future world of money and finance.

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). 

To summarize the Democrat Party’s current strategy on immigration, here is essentially how it works: 

Whenever in power, they create billions in incentives and subsidies to entice third world migrants to flood the US en masse.  With open borders and amnesty programs, moving 10 million or more illegals at a time into the country is easy and fast.  When out of power, they use lawfare and political obstruction to prevent deportations and slow down the process.  

In other words, make immigration easy and remigration nearly impossible.  Stall for four years, regain power during the next election while pro-deportation constituents whine and complain about the president “not doing enough”, then repeat the process all over again.  Under the current system, it would take three full conservative presidential terms or more to undo what Democrats did in a single term.  That is the play they are relying on.

From 2017 to 2024, the Trump Administration faced 64 nationwide injunctions on immigration and deportation policies; 92% of them came from judges appointed by Democrat presidents.  

From 2025 to today, Trump has been blocked at least 86 times by activist judges nationwide or class-wide injunctions and major program pauses.  To put this in perspective, nationwide injunctions were extremely rare through the 20th Century.  Starting in 2000, the numbers increased, but nowhere near the level Trump has dealt with. 

George W Bush had only 6 injunctions from Democrat judges. Barack Obama had 12 injunctions from Republican judges.  Biden had 28 injunctions (largely because of his efforts to expand pandemic controls and enforce vaccine mandates). 

It is undeniable – The bureaucracy is being abused as a way to stop Trump from enacting normal policy decisions on immigration.  This forces the White House to exploit every legal loophole available just to get anything done in the next couple of years.  

Enter the “recission” method…

The White House has moved to cancel $810 million in already-approved federal spending through a rare budget tactic called a “pocket rescission.”  The administration frames it as cutting “wasteful and harmful” programs tied to noncitizens, DEI, and ideology.  Critics call it “illegal”. 

The timing is what makes the decision controversial. The federal fiscal year ends September 30th. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president can propose canceling appropriated money and withhold it for 45 days while Congress considers the request.  By sending this package with only five days left, the White House is betting the money will expire before Congress can act. 

This is the second such move in about 50 years and both came in Trump’s second term. Last year the administration used the same tactic on $5 billion in foreign aid; the Supreme Court later allowed that effort to proceed 6–3, citing foreign-affairs authority.   

Legal challenges are still likely, but perhaps this situation will help to illustrate why the deportation process has been a grind.  Even with the constant interventions, deportations have skyrocketed by 30% in the past year to 80,000 illegals removed per month.  Trump should be commended for finding a way despite all the obstacles Democrats have put in place.     

Authored by Charles Kennedy via Oilprice.com,

Refinery production figures, export contracts and tanker routes are now off-limits to public reporting in Russia, under a decree Putin signed Monday, Reuters reported. The Kremlin points to unfriendly actions by Washington and its allies as the reason, and the restrictions took effect on signing, with the government given 10 days to define exactly which product codes are covered.

Data on refining volumes at Russian plants is now restricted, along with contract details, including product names, quantities, prices, buyers, sellers, payment terms, shipping routes, and vessel coordinates at export terminals. Customs statistics and planned sales volumes on commodity exchanges fall under the same rule. None of it can appear “through mass media or internet networks,” per the decree text, unless a company chooses to disclose its own figures.

Moscow classified crude output data after annexing Crimea in 2014 and tightened that secrecy again after invading Ukraine in 2022. Monday’s decree does the same for refining and logistics data, tying it directly to sanctions enforcement on the rationale that the less Western governments can verify independently, the harder the price cap is to police.

The timing lines up with a rough year for Russian refineries. Ukrainian drones have hit a Russian refinery every three days on average through the first eight months of 2026, and IEA figures put national throughput at 3.8 million barrels a day by June, down 30% from a year earlier and the lowest level in over two decades. Gasoline output is down roughly 20% and diesel nearly 30%, with fuel shortages reported across 92% of Russian regions.

Officials in Moscow describe the damage as under control. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said this month that fuel supply had improved on additional refinery deliveries, while Putin himself has put the share of refineries still needing repairs at around 10%.

Several days ago The Washington Post reported that the Pentagon quietly added dozens to its tally of American servicemembers wounded amid the Iran war.

Since March and hearkening back to the opening weeks of Operation Epic Fury, there’s been an alleged constant Trump administration effort to conceal or at least downplay damage and casualties from Iranian retaliation strikes on US bases in the region.

War Secretary Pete Hegseth and top generals especially in the opening months tried to present the American public with a much rosier than the ground reality picture of how things are going in the new Middle East war.

The Washington Post’s Sept. 25 article noted in the wake of recent flare-ups in fighting from weeks ago: “The Pentagon’s public tally of troops wounded during the Iran war was quietly increased by 37 this week without explanation from the Defense Department.”

“The increase includes 29 Navy sailors and eight Marines, according to a review of the Pentagon’s public database of personnel killed and wounded during U.S. conflicts and other military operations overseas,” the report continued, referring to the official Defense Casualty Analysis System, or DCAS.

This set off an avalanche of speculation over the weekend, also as regional watchers considered whether prior attacks on US bases in Jordan resulted in more casualties than what’s ever been publicly disclosed.

A Sunday NBC News report may have offered the answers needed. It cites officials who describe that eight US Marines were injured when an Iranian anti-ship cruise missile struck a vessel in the Strait of Hormuz that they were operating on earlier this month.

The group of Marines are said to include seven enlisted troops and one officer – and reportedly suffered injuries which range from traumatic brain injuries to smoke inhalation:

Eight U.S. Marines were injured two weeks ago when an Iranian cruise missile attacked the ship they were operating on in the Strait of Hormuz, according to three U.S. officials. The Marines were not seriously injured, but they sustained smoke inhalation and possibly traumatic brain injuries, as they had symptoms of concussions, such as headaches, the officials said.

Further interesting is that NBC’s sources made clear that when the attack happened, the Marines were not aboard a US Navy ship, which suggests they may have been operating incognito on an unmarked vessel, or else were possibly directly on a tanker being provided protection by the US Navy. Officials didn’t specify the type of ship they were on, but only called it a “maritime vessel”.

Unless they’re riding around in the tugboats, this seems like confirmation that US marines are on these tankers that are being escorted through the Strait of Hormuz. https://t.co/70PbaUneDe

— barry with the NED (@bonzerbarry) September 28, 2026

And Joe Kent, Trump’s former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, says something similar…

If this report is true, it means we are using U.S. troops to escort oil tankers through the SOH, where oil had been flowing freely before we started this disastrous war of choice at the behest of the Israelis.

This a reckless and frivolous gamble with American lives, which we…

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) September 28, 2026

Military.com in a fresh follow-up report has added more context as follows:

Eighteen service members have now died and over 800 Americans have been wounded in the conflict, according to the Pentagon’s own data. Last week, Army officials told Military.com that Capt. Bianca C. Wilkerson, 37, of Norfolk, Va., died on Sept. 18 as a result of “a non-combat related incident.” She was posthumously promoted to major.

NBC News reported that the Marines were not on a Navy ship, and that all returned to duty soon after the attacks. They were reportedly operating as part of a battalion landing team.

The attack is said to have occurred on Sept. 14 – and the new casualties were added to the Pentagon’s Defense Casualty Analysis System almost ten days later. This is likely going to fuel more accusations of a broader US casualty cover-up amid the standoff with Iran.