Update (1005ET):

At the cash open, AMD shares jumped as much as 38% to new record highs following news of the OpenAI deal (see previous update for details). In fact, this intraday surge so far marks the largest share gain in nearly a decade, or about 9.5 years, dating back to the 52.3% gain on April 22, 2016.

 Record high.

Goldman analyst Peter Callahan says today is all about …

 The deal between AMD and OpenAI sent the Philadelphia Stock Exchange Semiconductor Index up 4%, reaching a new all-time high.

Totally not a bubble… 

*   *   *

The epic “circle jerk” continues (read how this works at the end of the note )…

Shares of Advanced Micro Devices surged in premarket trading after the company announced a multi-year partnership with OpenAI to roll out next-generation AI infrastructure. The first 1-gigawatt deployment of AMD Instinct MI450 GPUs is scheduled to begin in the second half of 2026.

AMD and OpenAI have signed a definitive agreement establishing AMD as a core compute partner for OpenAI.

Well, that solves it. Won’t be Intel…

AMD SHARES JUMP 16% ON CHIP DEAL WITH OPENAI

Won’t be intel

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 6, 2025

The partnership begins with the Instinct MI450 series and rack-scale AI solutions designed for data centers that power OpenAI’s chatbots.

Here’s the structure of the deal:

• Equity component: AMD granted OpenAI a warrant for up to 160 million AMD shares, vesting with deployment and performance milestones tied to capacity expansion (1 GW → 6 GW), AMD share-price thresholds, and OpenAI rollout goals.

AMD CFO Jean Hu said in a statement, “Our partnership with OpenAI is expected to deliver tens of billions of dollars in revenue for AMD while accelerating OpenAI’s AI infrastructure buildout,” adding, “This agreement creates significant strategic alignment and shareholder value for both AMD and OpenAI and is expected to be highly accretive to AMD’s non-GAAP earnings-per-share.”

“This partnership is a major step in building the compute capacity needed to realize AI’s full potential,” OpenAI CEO Sam Altman stated. He noted, “AMD’s leadership in high-performance chips will enable us to accelerate progress and bring the benefits of advanced AI to everyone faster.”

AMD shares in New York jumped as much as 25%.

What this also means is that despite the now explicit backing (and investment) of the White House, Intel failed to win this deal which makes it clear who the real Alphas are in the chip space. Surprisingly, in a sign of brief market rationality, NVDA stock is actually lower this morning (we doubt it lasts) as AMD takes away tens if not hundreds of billions in future chip revenue from the world’s largest company. 

If AMD gains hold above 23.8% (April 9, 2025) through the end of the cash session, this would mark the largest daily increase since the 52.3% jump on April 22, 2016. 

Related, and a must-read (spoiler alert: some of the nation’s top data center financiers weren’t too happy we called it a “circle jerk” ): The Stunning Math Behind The AI Vendor Financing “Circle Jerk”

*OPENAI SIGNS AMD CHIPS DEAL WORTH TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

it’s called a daily circle jerk because it’s daily https://t.co/ULqRYTJ8l0

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 6, 2025

. . . 

By Michael Every of Rabobank

There is some irony that this Global Daily author, who has written about geopolitical events such as drone incursions into Europe regularly, was trapped in Munich airport on Friday night by what were reportedly military reconnaissance drones; had to sleep on the floor with 3,500 stranded souls like a scene from a zombie movie; was rerouted via other destinations so the door-to-door journey was 42 hours; and had his suitcase lost by the airline on the way out AND on the way back. However, it underlines anyone thinking current life is ‘normal’ is living in a bubble.

Europe, for all its talk, seemingly has no way of dealing with these drones. Whose are they? We don’t know. Why are they not being shot down when spotted – a lack of ammo or a lack of will? We don’t know. Given that the plan for an EU ‘drone wall’ was shot down immediately as unworkable –which it is given the scale of territory involved– what is workable and allows people to work? Logically, without a plan we can expect more flights to be disrupted, with a growing economic impact.

Meanwhile, the world around us is in equal flux – but with some plans, both good and bad.

President Trump told CNN that Hamas faces “complete obliteration” if it refuses to cede power in Gaza, saying he’ll “soon know” if the group is serious about peace. Negotiators meet in Egypt today, so fingers crossed. Trump also reportedly Israeli PM Netanyahu to “take the win” and not to always be “so f***ing negative.” Either more massive violence or a sudden peace looms there – and both could prove transformative. Europe is merely an observer either way.  

There are unsubstantiated reports that China is providing Russia with satellite information to allow it to make missile strikes in Ukraine. Would that be a red line for Europe, or do European red lines there echo those of its policy over drone incursions?

pic.twitter.com/pkpmtkldgz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 5, 2025

The recent 100,000 SIM card plot to disrupt telecoms in New York around the UN general assembly was even larger than thought, says the US ABC, as it included New Jersey. Despite this being something which only a state would be capable of doing, and which only a few states would have even attempted, it isn’t being mentioned much by the media, either in the US or Europe.

Latin America remains on edge as the US Monroe Doctrine returns in force to push back against entrenched Russian, Iranian, Hamas/Hezbollah, and Chinese influence and whispers are that a move against Venezuela looms. Europe thinks an FTA with Mercosur is some kind of answer.

In Africa, ‘Trump’s peace hopes for Rwanda-Congo face threats’, says The Hill. Other locations also look concerning.

In domestic politics, the FT reports “enormous fear” given Trump’s threats against Soros and the non-profits sector, while a judge temporarily blocked the president from sending National Guard troops to Oregon.

In France, as he appoints new government ministers, PM Lecornu “tries to save skin by ruling out use of constitutional backdoor”, according to Politico; that’s as EU Commission President Von der Leyen faces another EU parliament confidence vote debate today.

In the UK, the government is considering banning repeat public protests; foreigners will be banned from claiming benefits, says the opposition Tory party, following the lead of Reform UK and Trump; yet Reform is seen likely to raise Kent council tax after its cost-cutting drive faltered, says the FT, showing there may be no way to cut spending in the UK, like the US, with the looming November national budget all about how much taxes rise, and on whom.

Japan’s first female PM, Sanae Takaichi, has already seen equities soar and 40-year bond yields do the same. She is seen as an Abe- or Trump-like figure, but with inflation now back, the BOJ slowly hiking, and the Yen nearly double the level vs the US dollar that it was when Abe launched his ‘three arrows’ well over a decade ago — and the US unhappy about currency devaluations– to say nothing about Japan’s domestic political dynamic, what is the plan?

In geoeconomics, it’s clearly protectionism and barter to avoid the weaponization of the US-centric financial system. For example, ‘China hawks grow queasy over Trump’s push for deals with Beijing’, says Bloomberg; ‘“Worse than Trump’s tariffs”: EU steel protections poised to pummel British industry’, adds Politico; ‘Chinese cars for Iranian metals: how sanctions revived barter trade’, notes Bloomberg; and ‘How China secretly pays Iran for oil and avoids US sanctions’, from the WSJ shows a “Hidden arrangement secured by prominent Chinese insurer connects Tehran with its biggest customer”.

Put that all together and we see that ‘America is now one big bet on AI’ (FT) as “It’s seen as the magic fix for every threat to the US economy.” Indeed, ‘Elon Musk Gambles Billions in Memphis to Catch Up on AI’, says WSJ, where “the city is divided over the massive power and water demands.” China is obviously all in in its own way. Naturally, the ‘EU pushes new AI strategy to reduce tech reliance on US and China’ (FT), with a plan for “digital sovereignty” – just without any of its own AI giants or the cheap energy needed to power it, and alongside rearmament and other acronymic wish-lists.

As a senior Wall Street figure just noted current AI mania only had bubble-like qualities, one might say what we currently have instead is merely ‘sparkling malinvestment’. Yet looked at politically, AI is a double-or-quits bet on a way to get us out of our current structural morass — while destabilizing society in the process, warn some. And looked at geopolitically, it’s about the military: get military AI working properly and all bets are off. In fact, if one were deeply cynical one could argue regulators are happy to overlook wild market pricing at the moment in the pursuit of a private sector driven Manhattan Project.

Trying to some things up, Foreign Affairs magazine just published ‘Reading Schmitt in Beijing’, which argues the US drift away from both neoliberalism and liberalism mirrors its focus on China. Indeed, and that’s something I’d predicted as far back in late 2017: clearly think tanks and academics aren’t about their speed of thought.

Markets, once they finally get the gist of something, act much faster. For example, the main FT headline at the time of writing was all about gold: ‘‘Gold-plated Fomo’ powers bullion’s record-breaking rally’, as “Price has rocketed nearly 50% this year, its best performance since 1979, as institutional investors pile in”. Bitcoin is also back a fresh record high. I wonder why – and it isn’t all about “rate cuts!”, even if they do play a role in it.

Really, there’s nothing like a forced night’s sleep on a cold, hard airport floor to sharpen your focus on how the world actually works right now. If you still aren’t seeing it yourself, I suspect you may also get to experience it, or its equivalent, in the not-too-distant future.

Pack a spare blanket and toothbrush.  

Authored by Sam Dorman and Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

The Supreme Court is set to return on Oct. 6 for its 2025–2026 term, in which it will consider a series of cases that could affect major constitutional issues and impact President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The high court is expected to hear challenges to Trump’s policies and has already decided to hear arguments over Trump’s tariffs and attempts to fire high-level officials.

The Supreme Court will also consider whether states can ban men from playing in women’s sports, whether a ban on so-called conversion therapy violates free speech rights, and a variety of election-related cases that could affect the balance of political power in the United States.

Here are the top cases so far this term and what is at stake in each.

1. Trump’s Tariffs

In perhaps the most anticipated case this term, the high court will decide on the legality of a large swath of Trump’s tariffs.

Trump invoked an emergency powers law to impose reciprocal tariffs on almost all countries, as well as levies on Canada, Mexico, and China over the trafficking of fentanyl into the United States.

Several federal courts have ruled that those tariffs went beyond what the law allowed.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the power to impose tariffs, and it can delegate this authority to the president.

The Trump administration argues that the law, called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, authorizes the president to impose tariffs through a provision that grants the president the power to regulate importation.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has pointed out that that section of the law does not explicitly use the term “tariffs.”

It blocked the tariffs, but has paused the effects of its ruling until after the Supreme Court issues its judgment.

The Supreme Court has set a consolidated oral argument for Nov. 5 in Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections.

A truck carrying a shipping container at Port Newark Container Terminal in Newark, N.J., on April 10, 2025. President Donald Trump invoked an emergency powers law to impose reciprocal tariffs on almost all countries. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

2. Removal of High-Level Bureaucrats

Through a series of high-profile firings, Trump has led the federal court system to revisit a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent. The 1935 decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States held that Congress can set limits on the president’s ability to remove certain officials.

So far, lower courts have pointed to this decision as a basis for reversing Trump’s firings. Many of the lower court decisions have reached the Supreme Court’s emergency docket in recent months.

Although the justices have weighed in on some of those cases, they have not offered a final ruling on how far Congress can go in limiting Trump’s removal power.

That is expected to change soon, as the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case, Trump v. Slaughter, challenging Trump’s firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission, Rebecca Slaughter.

That agency was also the subject of the decision in Humphrey’s Executor, which the Supreme Court has said it may be open to overruling.

In 1935, the court said Congress could restrict the president’s removal of Federal Trade Commission board members because they served a “quasi-legislative” or “quasi-judicial” role.

While the exact definitions of “executive” and “quasi-legislative” power remain uncertain, those questions will likely be central to the Supreme Court’s eventual decision.

The Supreme Court also said on Oct. 1 that it would hear oral arguments in January over Trump’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook.

Trump sent Cook a letter on Aug. 25 stating that he was removing her “for cause,” citing “sufficient reason” to believe that she had made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. He invoked the Federal Reserve Act, which states that the president can remove a member of the board “for cause.”

Cook has argued that Trump did not cite a legally recognized “cause” and that his interpretation of the law would “destroy the Federal Reserve’s historic independence.” She has also denied the allegation of fraud.

Federal Reserve Board of Governors member Lisa Cook attends the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s 2025 Jackson Hole Economic Symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyo., on Aug. 23, 2025. Trump invoked the Federal Reserve Act to remove Cook “for cause,” citing “sufficient reason” to believe that she had made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements. Jim Urquhart/File Photo/Reuters

3. Girls Athletics

In recent years, red states have advanced legislation to ban boys’ participation in girls’ sports. Two of those states, Idaho and West Virginia, are expected to appear before the Supreme Court this term to defend the legality of their policies on that issue.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases after issuing another landmark decision in United States v. Skrmetti, which holds that states can ban hormone therapy or gender-altering surgeries for minors without violating the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

The high court is expected to address that same constitutional provision in the sports cases Little v. Hecox and West Virginia v. B.P.J.

In both cases, students are arguing that the state laws discriminate based on “transgender status” and therefore violate the Constitution.

Beyond that issue, the Supreme Court is expected to look at whether West Virginia’s ban violates a federal law known as Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

That decades-old law bans sex-based discrimination by educational institutions that receive federal funding.

An appeals court said in 2023 that West Virginia violated Title IX.

The Trump administration, in a friend-of-the-court brief, said that the state’s policies are legally sound.

The plaintiff in the Idaho case, a college senior, has reversed course and stated an intention to not participate in women’s sports. The student has suggested that the case is therefore moot, or irrelevant, before the court.

It is unclear whether that particular case will now proceed to oral argument.

The court has not yet set a date for the hearing.

President Donald Trump, joined by female athletes, signs the “No Men in Women’s Sports” executive order in the White House on Feb. 5, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

4. Redistricting

After Louisiana redrew its congressional district map in 2022, a group of private citizens, along with civil rights groups, sued.

The map only contained one mostly-black district, even though that group of voters represents one-third of the state’s population.

The plaintiffs argued that this was done to dilute black voting power in Louisiana and that it violated the Voting Rights Act of 1964.

That legislation prohibits laws or policies that “deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”

The groups won in district court.

The judge ordered the state to draw the lines again and add another mostly-black district. Louisiana did so in 2024.

A group of non-black voters then sued, arguing that the redrawing based on race discriminated against non-minority voters.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in March but declined to issue a ruling.

Instead, the court wanted more briefs and arguments from both sides about whether creating a second mostly-minority district violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment.

The 15th Amendment prohibits voter discrimination based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The outcome may have implications for the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans currently hold a slim majority in the House of Representatives, and Democrats are looking to retake that chamber.

In 2022, Republicans won five out of Louisiana’s six congressional seats.

In 2024, after the new map was introduced, the GOP won four of those seats and Democrats won two.

That case will be argued again on Oct. 15.

Customers eat as they watch the election results at the Louisiana Pizza Kitchen in New Orleans on Nov. 5, 2024. In 2024, after the new Louisiana congressional district map was introduced, the GOP won four of the state’s six congressional seats, one fewer than in 2022. Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images

5. Pregnancy Center’s Donor Lists

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers provides free counseling to parents experiencing unplanned pregnancies but does not perform abortions or give abortion referrals.

In late 2023, New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin accused the pregnancy center of violating the state’s Consumer Fraud Act by hiding its pro-life stance from clients but openly promoting it to its donor base.

He also accused the group of “misinformation” because it claimed to be able to reverse chemical abortions in certain circumstances.

Platkin subpoenaed First Choice’s donor records, but the organization resisted.

Donors have a right to anonymity, it stated, and should be protected from political retaliation.

First Choice filed suit to block the subpoena, alleging that New Jersey was violating its First Amendment rights, since the investigation was politically motivated.

It also argued that the subpoena violated its Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

What followed was a complex series of court battles, which reached the Supreme Court in May 2024.

The court then declined to halt the subpoena.

The case continued in the lower courts, and in June, the high court revisited the matter and agreed to hear arguments this fall.

6. ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban

Colorado instituted a ban on LGBT “conversion therapy” for minors in 2019.

The law prohibits licensed therapists from attempting to “change an individual’s sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles, who works with youth seeking to deal with unwanted same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, pushed back with a federal lawsuit against the state in 2022.

Protesters gather in front of the Supreme Court as the court hears a case over banning gender procedures for minors, in Washington on Dec. 4, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The suit alleges that the law is a clear violation of Chiles’s First Amendment free speech rights.

District Judge Charlotte Sweeney of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied Chiles’s request to overturn the law in December that year.

Sweeney wrote that the law does not directly regulate Chiles’s speech; rather, it regulates her conduct as a state-licensed therapist.

Any infringement on her speech rights is “incidental,” according to the judge.

An appeals court later upheld that decision.

Colorado is one of 27 states, along with the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, that have restricted or banned conversion therapy for minors.

If the Supreme Court sides with Chiles, it may trigger suits against those laws.

Oral arguments are set for Oct. 7.

7. Hawaii’s Gun Restrictions

The court will take up a major gun case this term, considering the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that bans firearms on private property, unless the property owner has consented.

The case cites the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which states that firearm restrictions need to be consistent with the nation’s “history and tradition.”

Hawaii’s law states that if concealed carry permit holders want to take guns onto private property, including stores, restaurants, and hotels, they need permission, either verbally or through a sign.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the restrictions in 2024. A group of Hawaiians, along with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, told the Supreme Court that the Ninth Circuit’s decision analyzed U.S. history, specifically previous laws, in the wrong way.

The Trump administration similarly argued that the law fell foul of the 2022 ruling.

“Because most property owners do not post signs either allowing or forbidding guns, Hawaii’s default rule functions as a near-complete ban on public carry,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in a court filing.

Hawaii has responded by defending the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, arguing that the Second Amendment does not override a property owner’s right.

“The rule can be upheld for the independent reason that it represents a valid governmental effort to vindicate property owners’ fundamental right to exclude by enacting a default rule that comports with the community’s reasonable expectations,” a brief from the state reads.

The case, Wolford v. Lopez, has not yet been scheduled for oral argument.

8. Death Penalty and IQ

In November 1997, Joseph Clifton Smith and an accomplice murdered Durk Van Dam in Mobile County, Alabama, bludgeoning him to death for $140, his shoes, and some tools.

Smith was convicted, and a jury decided that he should be executed.

But in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in another case that mentally disabled convicts could not be executed because their mental capabilities reduce their culpability and ability to assist lawyers in trial.

Following that ruling, Smith appealed his case.

He had taken multiple IQ tests with scores ranging from 72 to 78.

In Alabama, the threshold for intellectual disability is an IQ score of less than 70.

However, since Smith’s lowest test had an error range of plus or minus three points, a psychiatrist testified that his IQ could be as low as 69, which would put him in the range to avoid execution.

Alabama’s lethal injection chamber at Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, Ala., on Oct. 7, 2002. Dave Martin/AP Photo

A district judge and an appeals court agreed with this reasoning, ruling that Smith could not be executed.

Alabama challenged those rulings, arguing that the courts should have taken the full range of IQ scores into account instead of the error margin of the lowest score.

Arguments were originally set for November, but were removed from the calendar in mid-September.

The court has not yet rescheduled.

9. Campaign Spending

The controversy over money in politics is returning to the Supreme Court this term in a case regarding to what extent political parties and candidates can coordinate their spending.

Decades ago, Congress passed a law called the Federal Election Campaign Act, which imposes limits on this type of spending.

Coordinated expenditures include such activities as making payments for political consultants, renting venues for rallies, and spending money on political advertising.

In 2022, then-Senate candidate JD Vance, then-Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio), and two Republican committees brought a lawsuit questioning whether those limits violated the First Amendment.

When an appeals court reviewed the case in 2024, it was sympathetic to the Republicans’ arguments but said its hands were tied because of a previous Supreme Court decision that backed the idea that Congress could regulate coordinated expenditures without violating the First Amendment.

Republicans argue that the 2001 decision in Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee left some room for challenges based on the First Amendment.

They also contend that the government lacked a legitimate basis for imposing the limits.

Audience members watch the CNBC Republican Presidential Debate at the University of Colorado’s Events Center in Boulder, Colo., on Oct. 28, 2015. The Federal Election Campaign Act, which imposes limits on coordinated expenditures by political parties and candidates, was challenged in 2022 by a lawsuit questioning whether those limits violated the First Amendment. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

The Federal Election Commission, which the Republicans are suing, has similarly criticized the law, so the Supreme Court has appointed another attorney to defend the lower court decision.

Oral arguments in the case, National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, have not yet been set.

10. Defense Contractor Liability

On Nov. 3, the Supreme Court is expected to consider whether defense contractors can be sued for liability over terrorist attacks in foreign countries. The case is Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

An Afghanistan veteran named Winston Hencely was critically injured in a 2016 suicide bombing. The terrorist attack occurred on a U.S. military base and was committed by the Afghan employee of a contractor who worked on the base.

An Army investigation found that the contractor, Fluor Corp., failed to properly supervise the bomber.

Hencely lost on the appeals level because of the court’s interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which generally shields the government from liability under certain circumstances.

One of those circumstances applies to the U.S. military during times of war.

Although Fluor Corp. was a contractor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the law’s protection for the federal government should be extended to companies such as Fluor.

U.S. Army soldiers retrieve their duffel bags after they return home from a nine-month deployment to Afghanistan at Fort Drum, N.Y., on Dec. 10, 2020. The Supreme Court is expected to consider whether defense contractors can be sued for liability over terrorist attacks in foreign countries. John Moore/Getty Images

11. Other Trump Cases

Besides the cases on Trump’s tariffs and his firing of officials, the Supreme Court may decide to weigh in on other challenges to the administration’s policies as they move up through the court system.

Many of the disputes have already reached the high court on its emergency docket, which lets the court temporarily allow or block executive actions while the case works its way through the lower courts.

As it has approached the 2025–2026 term, the Supreme Court has sent many cases back to lower courts, often allowing Trump to proceed with a particular action or policy.

For instance, it has allowed the Pentagon’s policy banning military troops with gender dysphoria, the administration’s withholding of billions of dollars in foreign aid, and deportations to third countries.

Several other cases are pending, including those challenging Trump’s plan to restrict birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court ruled last term on procedural aspects of blocks to that policy but has yet to address underlying constitutional issues.

That could change, as the Trump administration asked the court on Sept. 26 to address whether Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship is unconstitutional.

Combined, these cases present questions about the scope of executive authority and the nation’s separation of powers.

French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu abruptly resigned on Monday morning, just three weeks after his appointment, preempting what appeared to be an inevitable ousting. Lecornu was expected to unveil his policy agenda before the National Assembly on Tuesday, but both the Socialist Party and the National Rally had warned that without a drastic policy shift, they would trigger a no-confidence vote. French bonds and stocks slumped on the emerging political crisis. 

President Emmanuel Macron’s office issued a one-sentence statement, confirming that Macron had accepted the resignation of Lecornu. This comes amid turmoil over the composition of his cabinet, a coalition of centrists and conservatives. 

Lecornu told reporters his resignation was primarily due to the inability to compromise across the political spectrum: “I was ready to compromise, but each political party wanted the other political party to adopt its entire program.”

He told reporters in the courtyard of the Matignon Palace, the prime minister’s headquarters, that he had spent weeks trying to forge a viable path forward with politicians, unions, and social partners from both political sides, but had achieved no breakthroughs. 

Jean Garrigues, one of France’s top political historians, told local media that Macron will likely be forced to dissolve the National Assembly once again. 

“A fresh dissolution might lead to an increase of seats for the National Rally in the lower house, but it’s unlikely that they’ll get an outright majority,” Garrigues stated in the interview. 

UBS analyst Simon Penn provided clients with the three possible pathways for Macron to move forward: 

1. He can try another technocrat type

2. He can call a general election

3. He can quit and call a full presidential election

The Bloomberg Economics team provided readers with the visualization. 

Penn warned that France is entering a dangerous political environment:

French PM Lecornu has resigned less than a month after he was appointed (Sept. 9). On face value Lecornu looks to have quit before he was forced out. He was due to present his policy proposals to the National Assembly on Tuesday, but leaders of the Socialist and National Rally had already warned that unless there was a total change in direction they would call a vote of no confidence immediately after Lecornu stopped speaking.

Furthermore, the press and public reaction to the appointment of a near unchanged cabinet from the Bayrou administration has been somewhat scornful. President Macron has attempted three times to try for the same policies and failed three times. As the famous quote from Jean-Claude Juncker goes: “We all know what to do, but we don’t know how to get re-elected once we have done it.”

The latest failure puts French politics into very dangerous territory – more so than the markets seem to be pricing. The lessons of the UK in the 1970s are worth bearing in mind – a government in the early 70s attempting what today would be described as austerity; failing and being replaced by socialist policy, that today might be described as populist. It took mass strikes, power blackouts and an IMF bailout before UK voters were willing to accept the necessary medicine that came in the form of the 1979 Thatcher government.

Meanwhile, across other Wall Street desks this morning, analysts are desperately trying to make sense of the political turmoil and what comes next. Barclays analysts expect parliamentary elections, adding that a Macron resignation is “unlikely.”

Political turmoil sent the CAC 40, the benchmark French stock market index, down 1.5% by early afternoon trading in Paris. French bonds also dropped. 

More market commentary from UBS analyst Justinus Steinhors: “The Euro Stoxx 50 falls 80bp, retreating from highs. Yields jump on political turmoil: in France, PM Lecornu resigns after less than four weeks in office.”

Alexandre Baradez, chief market analyst at IG in Paris, warned, “What’s new this morning is the beginning of contagion from France to the rest of the European banking sector. The drop of the sector is 100% linked to France. Given that banks have outperformed the markets so much, all the elements are aligned for some profit-taking on these stocks.”

Allianz CIO and Chief Economist Ludovic Subran told Bloomberg that it’s not the time to panic.

“I think the concern is what kind of budget France is going to get”

Allianz CIO and Chief Economist Ludovic Subran says Sebastien Lecornu’s resignation as Prime Minister is “absolutely not” a Liz Truss moment for France https://t.co/EM4CPWJ1vt pic.twitter.com/vEb8utW36h

— Bloomberg TV (@BloombergTV) October 6, 2025

Lecornu’s resignation makes him the shortest-serving prime minister in the history of France’s Fifth Republic, founded by Charles de Gaulle in 1958.

*  *  *

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Labour is raising taxes and environmental standards on North Sea oil and gas while refusing to issue new licences, but insists hydrocarbons will remain part of the UK’s energy mix.

• Wood Mackenzie research suggests up to 14 billion barrels of recoverable reserves may remain, far higher than regulator estimates, fuelling debate over future drilling.

• The government is pushing for a just transition toward renewables while the Conservatives promise to remove net-zero requirements and maximise North Sea extraction.

Since the Labour Party came into office in the U.K. last year, many have wondered if oil and gas drilling will continue or whether we will witness an all-out shift to renewable energy. Prime Minister Kier Starmer has introduced stricter taxes on fossil fuel companies since coming into power, but has also said that oil and gas will continue as part of the energy mix for as long as it makes sense. So, as the investor environment in the U.K. North Seas becomes ever murkier, what can we expect?

In June, the U.K. government introduced stricter environmental regulations for fossil fuel companies with projects in the North Sea. Oil and gas firms must now account for the environmental impact of emissions from using or burning the fuels extracted. This follows a decision by a Scottish court earlier in the year, deeming the approval of Shell’s Jackdaw and Equinor and Ithaca Energy’s Rosebank unlawful, meaning they required reassessment by the government.

While existing oil and gas projects can continue in the North Sea, albeit with companies paying higher taxes, the government has said it would not issue any new oil and gas licences, as it invests in a shift to green. This marks a distinct move away from the energy policy of the previous Conservative government, which strongly backed U.K. oil and gas operations. Oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea are taxed at around 78 percent, including the Energy Profits Levy introduced in 2022.

During his recent visit to the U.K., United States President Donald Trump discussed the country’s oil and gas potential. Trump said, “You have a great asset here, and we spoke about it: it’s called the North Sea.”

He added, “The North Sea oil is phenomenal… I want this country to do well, and you have great assets that you’re going to start using, I believe, under this Prime Minister,” addressing Starmer.

He said that his pro-fossil fuel agenda in the U.S. had helped drive down fuel prices and slowed inflation – even though fuel prices have actually risen since Trump came to office. 

In response, Starmer said that the Labour government plans to maintain a pragmatic approach to the country’s future energy mix, continuing to use North Sea oil and gas as required. He also emphasised the importance of reducing energy costs for consumers. Starmer said, “The mix will include oil and gas for many years to come from the North Sea – we’ve been clear about that for some time. But we also need to mix that with renewables, and it’s the mix that’s really important.” 

However, some believe that the government should be supporting U.K. oil and gas more strongly, as the North Sea still shows significant potential. The research company Wood Mackenzie recently estimated that there could be up to 14 billion barrels worth of recoverable oil and gas in existing North Sea fields, which is three times bigger than the four billion barrels estimated to remain by the U.K. regulator, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA). The analysis was AI-powered and assessed the “recovery rates” – the proportion of oil and gas that can be viably extracted from the fields.

The report stated, “If UK fields were able to match recovery factors from analogous global fields, an additional 9 percent could be recovered. If best-in-class recovery factors were matched, an additional 18 percent of recovery could be added… These scenarios would potentially add seven and 14 billion barrels of additional production, respectively, over the lives of the 100 largest fields.”

In contrast to the Labour government, the Conservative opposition recently said that it would remove all net-zero requirements on oil and gas companies drilling in the North Sea if elected. The party leader, Kemi Badenoch, said the Party has a policy of “maximising extraction” to get “all our oil and gas out of the North Sea”. This policy is aimed at driving down consumer energy bills. However, previous failures from the former Conservative government to reduce household energy costs have made many wary of the Party’s promises.

The current U.K. government has introduced an array of energy policies and financial incentives in recent months to support a green transition and aims to achieve the net-zero target by 2050, which was written into law by then-Conservative leader Theresa May in 2019. The government believes that diversifying the energy mix will not only strengthen long-term energy security but will also, ultimately, drive down energy bills.

The focus for many now is a just transition. Many in the oil and gas industry are concerned about what a sudden withdrawal from the North Sea will mean for workers and communities in the region. The government now has the potential to use the new investor interest in the green energy sector to support a just transition and ensure people do not get left behind.

Europe’s cities have changed dramatically in size and shape since 1975. Urban areas across the continent have sprawled outward, merging into large corridors of continuous development. This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu, highlights the urban growth of major European cities, showing how population and settlement patterns have evolved.

The data for this map comes from World Population Review and Copernicus.

The Largest Urban Areas

Moscow leads as Europe’s most populous city, with over 12.7 million people projected by 2025. Paris follows closely with 11.3 million, while London ranks third with nearly 10 million. These cities have long histories of urban development and continue to expand, both in terms of area and density.

Southern Europe’s Urban Growth

Madrid and Barcelona have a combined urban population exceeding 12.5 million. Italian cities like Rome, Milan, and Naples also feature prominently, reflecting decades of steady growth tied to industry and migration.

Fast-Growing Second-Tier Cities

Several cities outside the traditional top three have seen striking increases in population since 1975. Madrid’s urban population nearly doubled from 3.9 million to 6.8 million, while Kyiv grew from 1.9 million to nearly 2.8 million. Birmingham saw the most dramatic percentage rise—from just 583,000 to over 2.7 million.

From Lisbon to Saint Petersburg, most of the featured cities experienced substantial population growth over the past five decades.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: European Countries With the Most Immigrants on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The collapse of the German economy is now becoming visible even in the labor market. Yet instead of pushing for a political turnaround with deregulation measures and genuine relief, the federal government limits itself to empty rhetoric and media appearances. In Berlin, PR is mistaken for economic policy—propagandistic fragments are presented as proof of achievement.

It was a week of media presence for the Chancellor. Friedrich Merz staged visibility: speeches, press conferences, appearances on German Unity Day, and the first cabinet retreat at Villa Borsig. He even tackled the new swarms of drones—with emphatic rhetoric, as if these threats, according to panicked press reports, were undermining citizens’ trust in security and airspace control—and immediately called for border measures.

Had we not learned over the past decade that border control was impossible? Wasn’t this the mantra, particularly for the CDU, during the Merkel-era invasion crisis?

But never mind. It’s not just the borders crumbling due to political inaction and a lack of will to solve problems.

Rhetorically and Physically Present

Merz was omnipresent, rhetorically and physically. At the Unity Day ceremony in Saarbrücken, the Chancellor even attempted emotional bridges with the audience.

He invoked social cohesion, called for optimism and a “new beginning,” spoke of courage, initiative, and the challenges posed by autocracies, digitalization, and geopolitical change.

Germany, Merz said, stands in Autumn 2025 at a “decisive moment” in its history, a phase that may determine the nation’s future. Despite economic and security tensions, one must “look ahead with confidence and vigor” and strive for a “new unity” in the country. Citizens should not be paralyzed by fear but, like East Germans 35 years ago, dare their own new beginning.

What was meant as an appeal to the spirit of 1989 sounded more like empty morale-boosting slogans—subtle blame-shifting that puts the burden of the crisis on ordinary citizens.

Economically Bleak

The economic outlook is so grim that even Berlin’s normally insulated news bubble cannot entirely shield the Chancellor’s office from daily shocks in the German economy.

Mild Pressure, No Consequences

Fragments of criticism from Germany’s bureaucratic and union circles appear to have reached the Chancellor’s office. Industrial CEOs complain daily about ruinous energy costs. The grotesque regulations that strangle the country are conveniently ignored—they prevent the few innovative SMEs from becoming serious competition.

Yet when companies like Bosch cut 22,000 jobs, Mercedes scraps an electric vehicle project to return to combustion engines, and entire supply chains of basic industry vanish, political action is required.

But no one dares, even verbally, to strike at the root of this civilization-destroying policy—the green agenda shared by nearly all in Berlin, except the AfD. It embodies faith in centralized power in Brussels, paving the way for the “United States of Europe,” whatever its architects may envision.

Merz and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil—the true debt kings of our era—seriously believe that pumping a few hundred billion euros into failing projects will get the country moving again. An intellectual bankruptcy, and more: proof of structural delusion—ideological and intellectual.

Laughable “Reforms”

Merz’s response to deindustrialization and social crisis is surprisingly simple: a few media appearances, the “Made for Germany” coffee sessions, or announcing a “reform autumn” should suffice to prove the economy is turning around. It’s always the public’s bad mood, according to Merz—the eternal grumbler who simply doesn’t appreciate the hard work of policymakers.

In material terms, this government achieves nothing. In the distant future, companies might receive modest corporate tax relief—a few billion euros, laughable compared to a federal government budget of over €520 billion next year. A two-year temporary depreciation? A trivial gesture.

It is particularly cynical when the government celebrates simplified car registration or a new bureaucratic portal as groundbreaking deregulation while the administrative apparatus continues to consume billions unchecked.

For context: the ifo Institute estimates the direct and indirect costs of Germany’s bureaucracy at around €146 billion annually—over three percent of GDP.

In a country with a state share beyond 50%, this is nothing less than a confession of impotence: a document of inaction, overextension, or deliberate planning by the government—results unchanged.

Old Political Tales

Merz and Klingbeil repeat old political fables: bureaucracy will be reduced by €16 billion, eight percent of personnel cut. Believers may rejoice. Meanwhile, debates have already started about building new bureaucracies to manage the massive subsidy flows favoring green and military cronies in coming years.

Talk of deregulation is just a slogan, a hollow phrase, compulsively repeated by speechwriters. Reality: thousands of new positions at local and state levels, sold as “employment success.” Welcome to today’s political parallel universe.

It is telling that during this orchestrated week, neither the planned inheritance tax increase nor the end of spousal tax splitting proposed by Klingbeil were mentioned. All of this is media theater—distractions, smoke bombs—meant to suggest the problem has been recognized and addressed. In reality, it’s political simulation perfected to emptiness.

Actual Situation

The reality for the economy and citizens is very different. Merz allows the ever-increasing, grotesque CO₂ tax to pass without resistance—a bow to Brussels. Citizens feel the impact at the checkout as prices surge across daily essentials.

Meanwhile, municipalities respond to the green regulatory-induced economic crisis with tax hikes: the minimum business tax rate factor nationwide rises from 200 to 280 points—a costly measure that will eliminate thousands of jobs.

Since 2018, mismanaged policy has eliminated roughly 1.3 million private-sector jobs while the state created over 420,000 new public-sector positions—spinning the debt spiral ever faster.

A genuine reform would have broken this deadly cycle. It would have had the courage to finally address the migration crisis—rather than delaying debates over the migration-related citizens’ allowance through semantic smoke screens and political procrastination.

Nothing but Hot Air

Given the government’s disastrous record, one wonders: can’t they, won’t they, or aren’t they allowed? Whatever the reason for this political paralysis, Merz is the archetype of someone who simulates work with remarkable consistency—omnipresent, loud, center-stage—yet delivers nothing but hot air.

We know this game: the classic stalling tactic, backed by Berlin-Brussels consensus on the ideological agenda: social restructuring, centralized energy control, a monitored financial system, and the installation of a censored public sphere.

The media plays, channeling the 1990s, embodied by a Chancellor whose social media team reproduces tone, posture, and content from a past era, are proof. The Chancellor’s office believes it can regain air superiority over narratives and public opinion. Repeated messages, intensified public broadcaster propaganda, European censorship laws—all aimed to silence dissent and relegate serious opposition to “far-right conspiracy theories.”

In summary, this orchestrated week demonstrates once more how the political-media complex buys time by scattering sand into critics’ gears. Time to prepare the actual “reforms” underway elsewhere: a digital euro as a capital control, a UK-style digital ID, and accelerated wartime economic mobilization against an imminent Russian threat.

If this is the promised “autumn of reforms,” buckle up.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any Washington decision to supply Ukraine with long-range Tomahawk missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory would irreparably damage Moscow’s relations with Washington.

The warning comes less than two months after Putin met with President Donald Trump at a summit in Alaska, which sought de-escalation in Ukraine and was focused on improving bilateral relations. But now Putin is making clear that these relations could be destroyed, also at a moment the extension to the New START nuclear treaty has left some breathing room for nuclear negotiations.

“This will lead to the destruction of our relationship. Or at least the emerging positive trends in this relationship. So I’m saying what I think. And how things turn out depends not only on us,” Putin said in a fresh interview with Russian journalist Pavel Zarubin, parts of which were widely published Sunday.

Given the Tomahawk missile has a range of at least 1,500 miles, it could potentially hit Moscow and offices of Kremlin leaders, unleashing the likelihood of runaway escalation toward WW3. This is basically what Moscow is now warning about.

Already the US has said it is assisting Kiev with long-range targeting, which has included daily drone warfare, sometimes reaching over 800 miles into Russia with strikes on energy facilities. Probably such intel-sharing had long been happening for years in the war.

Vice President J.D. Vance had last week indicated the US is looking into the European request to send Tomahawks, and the Kremlin has said it would be deeply surprised if the US took this step.

Still, Trump has voiced frustration with Putin, going so far as to call Russia a “paper tiger” for its inability to quickly and decisively defeat Ukraine.

Yet it should be remembered that Russia’s actions are still only at the level of “Special Military Operation” and a full war mobilization has not been ordered.

Moscow has not revealed an intent to utterly destroy Kiev, and for the most part has not begun obliterating ‘decision-making’ centers, leaving open a chance for de-escalation.

Putin also last Thursday separately pointed out it was impossible to use Tomahawks without the direct participation of American specialists and thus any supply of these missiles to Ukraine would trigger a “qualitatively new stage of escalation.”

“This will mean a completely new, qualitatively new stage of escalation, including in relations between Russia and the United States,” Putin emphasized.

Cracker Barrel has fired the marketing agency responsible for its controversial woke logo design, which the company quickly backtracked on after public outcry. 

In an Oct. 2 statement, the company said that it was ending its relationship with California-based strategic and creative growth consultancy, Prophet, which had advised them on brand refresh initiatives – including the recent logo and restaurant redesigns that did not go over well, to put it mildly. 

The company also accepted the resignation of SVP Laura Daily, who had been with the company since 2012. 

“We are grateful to Laura for her leadership, including being a driving force behind the growth of our retail business during her tenure, and thank Cammie for the meaningful contributions and impact she made through her nearly a decade at the Company,” said CEO Julie Masino.

Masino – who gets to keep her job, announced the new logo on Aug. 19. The following day the company’s market cap crashed by nearly $100 million. One week later, Cracker Barrel announced that it would return to the old logo. 

“We thank our guests for sharing your voices and love for Cracker Barrel. We said we would listen, and we have. Our new logo is going away, and our ‘Old Timer’ will remain,” the company said in a statement. 

Other corporate shuffling includes the promotion of Doug Hisel – previously vice president (VP) of field operations, who is now the senior vice president (SVP) of store operations. He has been with the company for 18 years. 

Meanwhile, former employee Thomas Yun is rejoining the company as vice president for menu strategy and innovation. 

“These changes to our organizational structure, along with new leadership appointments and promotions, mark a strategic step forward as we sharpen our focus on consistently craveable food and warm country hospitality,” said Masino. “This transition reduces layers in the organization as we bring a hyperfocus on ensuring both every plate served and every interaction with our guests reflects the care and quality we stand for.”

As the Epoch Times notes further, President Donald Trump had also called on Cracker Barrel to give up its new redesign. Trump welcomed the switchback in an Aug. 27 Truth Social post.

“Congratulations, Cracker Barrel, on changing your logo back to what it was,” he wrote. “All of your fans very much appreciate it. Good luck into the future. Make lots of money and, most importantly, make your customers happy again!”

Cracker Barrel announced its full fiscal year 2025 financial results on Sept. 17.

The company reported $3.48 billion in revenues for the year, up 0.4 percent from the previous fiscal year. Net income was up 13.3 percent, while earnings per share jumped 12.6 percent.

“Many elements of our plan are working well and delivering results, as evidenced by five consecutive quarters of comparable store restaurant sales increases and 9 percent adjusted EBITDA growth in fiscal 2025,” Masino said. EBITDA refers to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.

“Looking ahead, there is much to be optimistic about, and our teams are focused on getting back to the momentum we created last fiscal year.”

For fiscal year 2026, the company is expecting revenues in the range of $3.35 billion to $3.45 billion. It projects opening two new Cracker Barrel stores and shutting down 14 Maple Street units. Cracker Barrel acquired biscuit company Maple Street in 2019.