Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Faced with a rapidly worsening budget outlook, German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil (SPD) believes he has finally found a fresh source of revenue. By scrapping the long-standing “marriage splitting” tax benefit—a system that allows couples to pool income and reduce their tax bill—he hopes to plug the ever-widening budget holes. It marks the preliminary climax of a tax hike debate designed less to fix Germany’s fiscal crisis than to relieve politicians from the pressure of implementing structural reforms.

In truth, this development comes as no surprise. The SPD has long sought to abolish marriage splitting. The measure is framed as a response to Germany’s structural deficit, which is projected to balloon to more than €170 billion by 2029—provided, of course, that the German economy does not sink even deeper into recession than it already has.

Ideology Masquerading as Fiscal Prudence

One must ask whether the recent public debate over inheritance tax hikes was nothing more than a test balloon, meant to measure how much additional burden the German population is willing to shoulder. Taken together, both initiatives—the higher inheritance tax and the abolition of marriage splitting—are perfectly complementary in the eyes of SPD ideologues. Both measures strike directly at a family and generational model regarded by the finance minister as “outdated” and now scheduled for fiscal liquidation.

The Social Democrats had long prepared themselves ideologically for this strike. And what else should one expect from a party that has, in large part, abandoned the classical family model—trading it in for identity-politics constituencies such as the transgender movement and other clientelist groups?

Klingbeil himself reveals what vision underlies this tax offensive: “Parental benefits should encourage men to take more responsibility in the family. Without those benefits for high-earning parents, it could once again become common for women to stay home. That would be a setback for equality,” he declared.

Beyond mere fiscal considerations, the SPD’s politicians are aiming for nothing less than the ideological reshaping of society. Through tax policy, they want to enforce a new societal model—one that strips citizens of real choice, stands in direct opposition to bourgeois traditions, and works against the civic foundations of the country.

DIW Provides “Scientific” Cover

And as always, whenever the state is on the hunt for new revenue streams, the Berlin-based German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) is close at hand. The economists around DIW president Marcel Fratzscher once again provide seemingly scientific cover. They calculate, down to the last decimal, how much the abolition of marriage splitting would bring into government coffers.

According to DIW, eliminating the system would generate additional tax revenues of €20 to €25 billion annually. This figure corresponds to the current shortfall created by the policy, since it primarily benefits couples with very unequal incomes—such as single-earner households. Voilà: the budget gap would be closed, at least temporarily. And all this without painful reforms, spending cuts, or coalition strife.

To DIW, marriage splitting is nothing more than a relic of patriarchy. But this view illustrates the real dilemma of publicly financed institutes: in case of doubt, they always bow to the prevailing ideology of the day, moving ever further away from their actual mission of neutral scientific analysis. In reality, it would be their duty to point out the blatant imbalances in Germany’s fiscal architecture—its bloated bureaucracy, its suffocating tax burden, and its overreaching state that strangles private enterprise.

Drowning in Revenue, Crying Poor

For the ongoing debate about higher taxes to occur against such a backdrop borders on the grotesque. Germany already operates with a state quota exceeding 50%. Federal revenues have soared in the last decade, rising from roughly €311 billion in 2015 to €440.6 billion in 2024—an increase of about 42%.

The trend is accelerating. In just the first half of 2025, €273.2 billion flowed into Berlin’s coffers, a jump of 5.5% compared to the previous year. Tax receipts, the largest component of revenue, climbed from €282 billion (2015) to €375 billion (2024). By August 2025 they had already reached €247.6 billion. The state is, quite literally, swimming in money.

Despite this, Berlin keeps inventing new taxes to soften coalition conflicts and delay reforms. For 2026, the government plans another hefty spending increase of about 6%, taking total federal outlays to roughly €530 billion. Meanwhile, the private economy is forecast to shrink by 4–5%. The political class in Berlin seems to have forgotten a simple truth: state revenues ultimately depend on a thriving private economy. Instead of cutting spending in a time of depression, Berlin doubles down on statism and redistribution.

A Blow to Social Cohesion

That the SPD is now preparing the largest tax increase since World War II—deliberately targeting the family, the bedrock of bourgeois society—will inevitably deepen Germany’s already fragile social fractures. The decisive question is whether the coalition partner, the CDU, will mount a robust defense and reject the plan.

So far, conservatives remain evasive. Back in May, CDU general secretary Carsten Linnemann dismissed an SPD proposal, stressing that marriage splitting must be preserved unless replaced by a broader “family splitting” model that also covers non-traditional households. In July, the CDU Women’s Union categorically rejected the SPD’s demand, underlining the high social value of supporting family structures.

Yet, as with so many issues, one never really knows where the CDU will stand in the end. If past experience is any guide, coalition loyalty may once again outweigh principle. In that case, Germany is heading toward its most consequential tax raid in generations—one that will weaken families, polarize society, and erode what remains of its economic backbone.

* * * 

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked over 25 years 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.

As of Tuesday, President Trump gave Hamas “two or three” days to respond positively to his 20-point Gaza peace plan, which is now being studied by Hamas.

Axios says that Qatar and Egypt are the prime mediators, having presented the plan to Hamas leaders in Doha, while Turkey is also said to be urging Hamas to agree to the plan, or at least some form of it.

Qatari Prime Pinister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani has said, “We and Egypt explained to Hamas during yesterday’s meeting that our main goal is stopping the war. Trump’s plan achieves the main goal of ending the war, though some issues in it need clarification and negotiation.”

But al-Thani also cautioned on Tuesday that Trump’s plan is “still at an early stage and needs development” – so Hamas is likely to come back with conditions of its own, though Trump has said there’s “not much” room for negotiations.

Axios notes of a couple of key hurdles from the Palestinian and Arab point of view:

• The plan calls for a phased Israeli withdrawal and for Hamas to fully disarm, something it has refused to do up to now.
• Some of the changes on the conditions and timetable for Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza infuriated Arab officials, and might be hard for Hamas to accept.

Despite reports saying Turkey is on board with Trump’s plan, in a new speech by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the Turkish President chose his words carefully, putting himself firmly on the Palestinian side while not offering any specific critique of the Trump plan. He has praised Trump’s leadership for seeking peace, but hasn’t commented on specific conditions of the plan. “Turkiye now stands as part of the US initiative,” Qatar’s foreign ministry has confirmed.

Addressing the opening of new legislative year at the Turkish parliament in Ankara, he declared: “Genocide motion Turkish Parliament accepted in August sent very strong message to Israel.”

“We never abandoned heroic sons, daughters of Gaza resisting Israel. We devoted our lives to Palestinian cause, will defend right of Palestine, our first qibla, sacred Jerusalem, to last breath,” he continued.

And then Erdogan alluded to the peace plan in the works, by saying somewhat vaguely: “Granting peace for Palestinians is debt of Islamic world, international community to Palestinians. Türkiye will work to ensure that not a single bomb is dropped on Palestinians any more.” Again, he has only very broadly alluded to a peace plan:

“Despite so much suffering, despite the blood of innocent people in the hands of killers, we adhere to our hopes. Allah willing, we will see better days where peace and security reign, from river to sea,” he said, using a famous slogan for the Palestinian cause, to the applause of lawmakers.

There’s a current reporting consensus saying Hamas is very unlikely to simply agree to the plan in its current form, also after it reportedly underwent edits which Netanyahu pushed for.

* * *

Commentary in Rabobank agrees that Hamas will most likely reject the deal:

In the Middle East, Trump said Hamas has “three or four days” to respond to his 20-point Gaza plan or it will “pay in hell”, as the Qatari PM seemed to backtrack and say the plan still needs “clarification and discussion”, and Turkey’s spy chief arrived in Doha to hold talks with the designated terror group. The BBC has reported Hamas is likely to reject the deal, which regional experts think could presage an explosion of military action before it is then finally agreed the hard way – but nothing there is clear.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

There’s little doubt that Ukraine has an interest in escalating NATO-Russian tensions through these means, including by employing anti-government Russian and Belarusian nationals in this reported plot, but it’s debatable whether Poland is involved in this and the extent to which it might be if so.

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warned that Ukraine’s GUR and the Polish intelligence services (none of the several existing ones were specified) are cooking up a false flag attack in Poland, which might “involve a simulated attack on critical infrastructure”, in order to blame Russia and Belarus.

According to them, “Kiev hopes to incite European countries to respond to Russia with the harshest possible force, preferably militarily.”

The veracity of these dramatic claims will now be assessed.

In reverse order, it does indeed appear to be the case that Kiev wants to manipulate NATO members into initiating direct military force against Russia, whether in the special operation zone or elsewhere such as on the territory of its Belarusian mutual defense ally or in its exclave of Kaliningrad. This explains why Zelensky repeated his no-fly zone demands after the suspicious Russian drone incident in Poland and called for closing the Danish Straits to Russian shipping after similarly suspicious incidents in Scandinavia.

Of relevance, SVR claimed that the aforesaid Polish incident and an associated Romanian one were Ukrainian provocations, though it’s still unclear exactly what happened. In any case, it’s also relevant to mention the reports amplified by Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova that Ukraine is preparing a false flag drone provocation against NATO as well as Zelensky’s partial responsibility for Trump’s flip-flip on Ukraine, all of which lend credence to suspicions about Ukraine’s motives.

Moving along, the part of their report about how “militants from the ‘Freedom of Russia Legion’ and the Belarusian ‘K. Kalinovsky Regiment’” have been selected for this next provocation might also be true since they’re known to be Ukrainian proxies, so each’s nationals could indeed be implicated in this plot. That would in turn make it more likely that NATO, including the US, is misled about who’s responsible. As for their claim of Poland’s joint involvement in orchestrating this, however, that’s much more debatable.

Conservative-nationalist Polish President Karol Nawrocki and his National Security Bureau weren’t informed by liberal-globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government that the damage incurred by a home during last month’s drone incident was caused by a wayward Polish missile. They only found out after a source leaked this to the press, which followed Tusk’s government blaming that damage on Russia at an emergency UNSC meeting, thus suggesting that he wanted to manipulate Nawrocki and his allies.

As assessed here, the purpose was to deceive him into authorizing Polish participation in a no-fly zone over Ukraine in order to raise NATO-Russian tensions, with these convoluted means being employed due to his reluctance to further embroil Poland in the conflict. Circling back to SVR’s report, either their source about Poland’s joint involvement in this latest plot is wrong or subversives within its “deep state” are going behind Nawrocki’s back, but the point is that it’s unrealistic to imagine that he’s in on it.

As a reminder, some of SVR’s reports didn’t pan out such as their ones about US plans to replace Zelensky, which were critiqued here in summer 2024. It should also go without saying that Russia truly has no reason to risk an escalation of tensions with NATO by attacking Poland as explained here, here, and here in summer 2023. Nevertheless, given the credible possibility that Ukraine is plotting a false flag attack on Poland, Nawrocki and his own “deep state” allies should urgently launch an investigation.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Doug McMillon, chief executive of WalMart, has said that artificial intelligence (AI) is disrupting every single job in the corporation at all levels, impacting every sector. Many jobs will be eliminated, some created, and most all retooled in some way. It’s all happening very quickly.

There is surely cause for some celebration. But certainly experiences of the last couple of decades should make us equally cautious about this plunge into the unknown. It’s wise to ask about the costs. What might we be losing?

The great trouble with AI isn’t about its functioning, efficiency, or utility. It is amazing at all those things. The danger is what it does to the human brain. Its whole ethos is to produce the answers to all things. But getting the answer is not the source of human progress.

Progress comes from learning. The only way to learn is through the discomfort required to get the answer. You first learn the method. Then you apply it. But you get it wrong. And you get it wrong again. You find your errors. You fix them and still get it wrong. You find more errors. Eventually you hit on the answer.

That’s when it becomes satisfying. You feel your brain working. You have upgraded your mind. You feel a sense of achievement.

Only through this process do you learn something. It comes from the pains of failure and deploying the human brain in the process of problem-solving. A student or a worker who relies on AI to generate all answers will not ever develop intuition, judgment, or even intelligence. Such a person will persist in ignorance. Holes in knowledge will go undiscovered and unfilled.

This is a massive danger we are facing.

The point comes from MIT professor Retsef Levi, who spoke at a Brownstone Institute event last week. It was a marvelous talk that made many other points in addition. His grave warning: Building systems that rely fundamentally on AI could be catastrophic for freedom, democracy, and civilization.

Even from an individual point of view, there is a threat that AI will dissolve the capacity to think, simply because we are not required to do so. Very recently, nearly every document I access offers an AI tool with a quick summary, so that I don’t actually have to read anything. This is absurd and I wish these companies would stop this nonsense.

They won’t. This all began with a phrase I despise: the “executive summary.” I don’t know from where this phrase came. Is the idea that a busy and fancy “executive” with a pager and a fast car can’t possibly be bothered with the details and narrative, because he has to take calls and make big decisions? I don’t know, but now the “executive summary” has invaded all things.

We now want everyone to cut to the chase, to skip to the “who done it” rather than read the drama, to hear the elevator pitch, because we just don’t have time to think much. After all, we always have better ways to spend our time. Doing what? Reading more “executive summaries,” one supposes.

This is all absurd pretense, and a consequence of believing that we are so advanced that we don’t actually have to know anything anymore. The system takes care of that for us.

At what point are we going to spend the time to think and learn? With all these tools to bypass actual contemplation, how do we know these answers that the system is giving us are the correct ones?

You might say that this is true for electronic calculators and the internet too. And that is true. Those both have that danger.

I’m probably among the last generation of students who went through college with card catalogs and physical stacks as the only resources available. When I wasn’t in class I was at the library, mostly sitting on floors, surrounded on all sides.

This was adventure. This was work. There was reward. Browsing stacks was joy, and I worked my way through the entire building gradually over two years. This is my knowledge base today.

I fell in love with learning. Not just knowing the answers but discovering how to get there.

Even finding periodicals required lifting heavy books and reading very closely. Once you discover the thing, you could go to the stacks and pick up bound volumes of literature dating back 150 years. You physically felt the pages and experienced them as previous generations did.

I often wonder whether this will ever happen again to students. I wonder what we have lost. No question that access is quicker. There are glorious features of the information age. Sadly, however, the entire system is organized around the idea of generating answers to every question. The more we bypass the process of discovery and struggle, the more we think the system works. I’m not so sure.

When I was in high school, I found Cliff’s Notes at the bookstore. There were short summaries of every bit of literature my teachers had assigned. I bought a few. I found out that I could spend thirty minutes getting the gist rather than nine hours reading the book. This would get me a B on exams and sometimes an A.

But then I noticed a problem. I was unable to talk with others about the book. They had reports of emotional experiences and thrills from actually reading. I had none of that. Who was the chump here? I was denying myself a wonderful experience: actually reading the book.

Knowing the characters and plot and conclusion, that is just data. What I did not have was the transformative experience of entering into another world created by the author. I was left with nothing memorable.

So on my own decision, I stopped doing this. I realized that getting the correct answers on the exam was not the point at all. The point was to learn, to go through the steps, to have the experience of discovery, to train the mind. The students who did this became intelligent and even wise. Those who did not stayed in place.

Eventually all students figure out how to game the system. This is especially true in graduate school. Professors want to be flattered and students figure out how to do that, without reading any of the material. These are the cynics. I knew many of them. I could never understand why they bothered at all.

Sure, they got through but to what end?

Sadly, the whole of our educational systems is about tests. The tests are designed to find out if the students get the right answers. Such a system will always be gamed. It becomes about passing true/false tests and multiple-choice things. With computers, it is worse. It’s habitual and lasts for 18 years.

This is not thinking. This is training robots.

AI only adds to the problem by taking the struggle and process out of everything. Struggling to get from here to there is the only way to build intellectual muscle.

I sometimes look back and remember how much time I spent practicing music, learning to play trombone, piano, and guitar, writing out music on manuscript paper that I heard on the records, sitting in practice rooms, and trying out at competitions.

Was it all a waste because I did not pursue it as a profession? Not at all. I was learning how to practice toward improvement.

Years later I bounced from one intellectual enthusiasm to another. For a while, I got obsessed with what is called eschatology, the theological theory of how the world ends. I must have read 60-100 books on the topic. Now I don’t care much, so did I waste my time? Not at all. I was training my brain to work.

This is why parents should not regret when their kids become obsessed with Harry Potter books and read them all five times. This is a fabulous way to boost mental capacity. Truly anything pursued with passion and diligence fights against the intellectual sloth.

That’s the problem right there. AI is a technology of sloth. We like that. We like it far too much. Right now AI seems magical because it is being paired with thinking people. (This is another point taken from Dr. Levi.)

What happens when thoughtful people gradually disappear and are replaced by sickly, lazy, thoughtless people who are incapable of generating any answers on their own?

That will be the end of the world. Maybe my books on eschatology will help more than I know.

Right now, the large language models I’ve used are often wrong, even very often wrong. I can usually spot the errors, for which the AI engine bears zero liability. We usually speak of such hallucinations as a problem. Maybe not.

The only thing worse than an AI system that is sporadically wrong is one that is always right. It’s the latter that is most likely to breed laziness and stupidity.

Advice to WalMart: Don’t build any systems in your supply chains whose functionality is wholly dependent on a technology only recently deployed and which no one really understands. If you do, you will find that your resilience as the world’s leading retailer to be vulnerable to competition from companies that value people, judgment, and wisdom over soulless machines cranking gibberish without a conscience.

By Charles Kennedy of OIlPrice.com

Major U.S. oil companies and their top managers were targeted by sanctions by a Yemeni body affiliated with the Iran-aligned Houthi rebels, for what they say is violating a Houthi embargo.

The Humanitarian Operations Coordination Center (HOCC), a Houthi-affiliated body created last year to liaise between the Houthis and commercial shipping operators, sanctioned 13 U.S. oil companies, nine executives, and two assets linked to the U.S.

“The HOCC will employ all available means and instruments to confront any hostile measures taken by any State or group against the Republic of Yemen, in accordance with the applicable laws and relevant regulations,” according to the executive director of the HOCC.

Units of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66, Marathon Petroleum, Valero, and Occidental are among the companies designated by the Houthi-aligned entity, as are their top executives including Exxon CEO Darren Woods, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth, and ConocoPhillips CEO Ryan Lance.

“It remains unclear whether these sanctions signal that the Houthis will begin targeting vessels linked to the sanctioned organizations, companies, and individuals — a move that would risk violating the ceasefire agreement with the Trump administration, facilitated by Oman,” Middle East analyst Mohammed Al-Basha posted on LinkedIn.

“Why now? The Houthis say this action is taken under the principle of reciprocity, a response to U.S. sanctions — despite Oman’s May 6, 2025 announcement of a de-escalation and ceasefire between the U.S. and them,” Al-Basha wrote.

The Houthi sanctions come as the Middle East is again the focus of geopolitical events this week, with the ongoing Israeli offensive in Gaza, the 20-point peace plan for Gaza unveiled by U.S. President Donald Trump and accepted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the snapback of the United Nations sanctions on Iran.

Moreover, the Houthis on Wednesday claimed responsibility for an attack on a Netherlands-flagged cargo ship earlier this week. The Monday attack on the Minervagracht left the vessel ablaze and adrift in the Gulf of Aden.

First there was a short-notice all generals and admirals meeting at Quantico Tuesday, following a summer of some top command firings and reshufflings, and on Wednesday The Washington Post is reporting that polygraph testing will commence for some high-placed Pentagon commanders.

This is reportedly to prevent leaks to the press, amid a climate of perceived ‘disloyalty’ and dissent against Defense Secretary (or War Secretary) Pete Hegseth. Polygraphs are typically used in the military or intelligence community in cases of suspected foreign espionage or instances of suspicion of handing off classified information. Hegseth has already greatly narrowed his trusted inner-circle.

“All military service members, civilian employees and contract workers within the office of the defense secretary and the Joint Staff, estimated to be more than 5,000 personnel, would be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement,” WaPo says.

The agreement “prohibits the release of non-public information without approval or through a defined process” – which is spelled out in a draft memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg.

There is an additional directive from Feinberg which establishes a random polygraph program for said officials, but it’s unclear if there’s any limit to the scope – suggesting that even four-star generals and admirals could be subject.

While there already exist laws and policies covering unauthorized disclosure of classified, restricted, or sensitive information, this is clearly part of a broader push to tighten up leaks.

One legal critic cited by the Post dubs this an “overboard NDA” which will be used to intimidate:

“This seems to be far more directed at ensuring loyalty to DOD [the Department of Defense] and the Trump administration leadership rather than countering any foreign espionage,” said Mark Zaid, a lawyer who has represented multiple whistleblowers and government officials targeted by the Trump administration.

“There are reasons why individuals were not required to take polygraphs before. And I would question why now the polygraph, and an overbroad NDA is being required other than to intimidate the workforce and ensure tighter control.”

Apparently Pentagon leadership under the Trump administration has in the recent past already conducted such random polygraph tests in some limited cases, in prior leaks to the news media. 

This certainly isn’t the first major controversy to emerge under Hegseth regarding distrust, disunity, and threats of hunting down internal leakers. The Wall Street Journal wrote back in April:

Word had leaked that he was planning a classified briefing for Elon Musk on China, a revelation that infuriated President Trump and raised alarms inside the Pentagon given Musk’s business ties to Beijing.

“I’ll hook you up to a f—ing polygraph!” Hegseth shouted at Adm. Christopher Grady, the then-acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to two people familiar with the exchange. Hegseth demanded proof that Grady hadn’t leaked news of the March 21 briefing.

Grady was never subjected to a polygraph, and Hegseth would go on to accuse a number of other people for the leak, including Lt. Gen. Doug Sims, the Joint Staff director, whom Hegseth also threatened with a polygraph test.

But for Hegseth, the episode marked a turning point in an already rocky tenure. Coming just days after revelations that the former Fox News host had shared sensitive military information in unsecured group chats on Signal, the leaks deepened his frustrations and eroded his trust in his close circle of advisers, the officials say.

However, White House staffers have pushed back when such polygraph threats spilled over into their domain, and President Trump reportedly intervened to temporarily halt it, prior reports say.

The controversy ensued into the summer, though some cast doubt on the media reports…

DRIVE-BY MEDIA? WaPo is reporting that a senior advisor to Secretary Hegseth refused to take a lie detector test during the leak investigation, complaining directly to the White House which immediately ordered Pete to stop using polygraph tests in his investigation. Pentagon… pic.twitter.com/Uq7BXBgq3N

— @amuse (@amuse) July 26, 2025

The reality too is that leaks to the media are a fairly standard part of any administration, going back through American history. Trump likely knows this, but is naturally leery of any further efforts of deep state operatives sabotaging his administration and its policies.

*  *  *

By Stuart Chirls of FreightWaves

Container rates on the eastbound trans-Pacific continued their plunge as ocean lines increase blank sailings amid weak demand that’s expected to persist through the end of this year.

The SONAR Inbound Ocean TEUs Volume Index for Oct. 1 was down less than 1% from the previous week, but off 14.58% year-on-year. 

Demand got a small bump from frontloading ahead of China’s Golden Week holiday, but nothing substantial enough to shore up falling rates.

Forecasts cite consumer concerns over rising prices, tariff concerns and trade shifts for a muted outlook through the end of the year. 

The second pause of retaliatory China tariffs announced by the Trump administration in August has so far failed to generate sustained improvement in the busiest Asia-U.S. trade lane. On Tuesday U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer termed a “good status quo” China tariffs of around 55% as the two countries continue to seek a mutually beneficial trade agreement.

But absent a deal or another pause, tariffs on Nov. 14 would boomerang back to around 145% on Chinese goods and 125% for U.S. shipments entering China, which all but shut down trade between the countries earlier this year.

Further complicating matters, China this week said it could levy costly port fees and bar some ships from its ports, in retaliation for punitive U.S. charges on China-linked ships set to take effect Oct. 14.

Asia-U.S. West Coast rates fell 15% to $1,853 per fort foot equivalent unit last week, according to the Freightos Baltic Index, while Asia-U.S. East Coast prices increased 16% to $3,967 per FEU.

The last time West Coast prices were this low was around December 2023, when spot rates dipped to approximately $1,744 per FEU.

Carriers have blanked, or withdrawn, about 13% of scheduled sailings on the trans-Pacific, as of Oct. 5, according to Sea-Intelligence. But  that’s less than a year ago, which saw a 15.4% capacity reduction for the West Coast and 11.9% for the East Coast during Golden Week, against just 3.8% and 4.8% reductions planned for 2025.

Earlier this week Vice President J.D. Vance raised eyebrows amid possible major escalation with Russia in acknowledging that the US administration is “looking at” supplying Ukraine with Tomahawk long range missiles, at the request of the Europeans.

Interestingly, the Kremlin has openly voiced that it is highly doubtful that President Trump would do such a thing. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Tuesday remarks that he does not believe the Trump administration has made a final decision, but that ultimately he would be “surprised” if the US went through with it.

“I think this is primarily the result of European pressure on Washington, and Washington wants to show that it takes into account the opinions of its allies. I don’t think we have seen the final decision,” Lavrov told reporters at the Valdai Discussion Club in Moscow.

“The Americans don’t supply Tomahawks to everyone,” he explained. “Among Europeans, if I’m not mistaken, they supply them to Spain and the Netherlands; they’re somewhat wary of the rest.”

And he followed with: “If they believe that Ukraine is a responsible nation that will use them responsibly, that would be surprising to me.”

Instead, the Zelensky government has shown itself ready and willing to mount long-range attacks even on Moscow, and in the past, the Kremlin complex itself, with drones.

Drones can only do limited amounts of damage, but a Tomahawk with an immense range of 1,500+ miles – capable of reaching Moscow – could unleash serious destruction.

Still, on Monday Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov had downplayed the Tomahawks as any kind of ‘game-changer’. “No magical weapons exist, and Tomahawk or other missiles simply won’t be a game changer,” he said.

Regardless, if the US does give the greenlight, it would be flirting with WW3, given Ukraine could turn around and begin targeting Moscow’s own decision-making centers.

Yet some influential officials in the Trump administration are still pushing the idea hard, including Keith Kellogg…

Kellogg claims Tomahawks will be the gamechanger. The more I listen to Kellogg, the more impressed I am with his strategic thinking. Why did the US not think of “gamechanger” weapons before? pic.twitter.com/crY8tJ6Pgj

— Alex Christoforou (@AXChristoforou) September 30, 2025

Hopefully Trump resists the fanaticism of these hawks on what could prove crucial ‘red line’ for Putin, and instead does more to pursue de-escalation.

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

The Trump administration will keep oil and gas permitting moving unhindered, despite the federal government shutdown that began on Wednesday, while approvals for renewable energy projects will halt, according to Interior Department plans seen by industry media. 

Staff at the Bureau of Land Management, which oversees 245 million acres of public land, have been exempted from furloughs to continue processing leases and drilling permits. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) said it will use carryover funds to maintain work on “priority conventional energy projects,” including offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, even as more than 70% of its staff are furloughed. Dozens of oil and gas lease auctions remain on schedule.

Renewable projects will not receive the same protection. BOEM confirmed that offshore wind and other non-fossil approvals will pause until government funding is restored. The approach follows President Donald Trump’s earlier declaration of a national energy emergency, which gave the Department of Interior discretion to sustain fossil fuel development during a shutdown, according to transportation industry source TTNews. 

The shutdown, which began October 1, has left hundreds of thousands of federal employees on furlough, and the energy sector could be impacted from the loss of regular government data releases. A prolonged shutdown could disrupt statistics essential for oil and gas trading, with delayed reports on inventories, production, and exports reducing transparency and adding volatility to markets.

Trump made similar choices during the 2018-2019 shutdown, the most significant of shutdowns, as it lasted for 35 days. During this time, Trump ensured that drilling permits were processed. By contrast, Barack Obama’s administration suspended auctions and halted drilling approvals during the 2013 shutdown. 

By John Gallagher of FreightWaves

After the federal government shut down at midnight Tuesday, freight supply chains, in the short term, should be largely unaffected.

In most cases, federal agencies that run the programs and services affecting goods movement are either funded by mechanisms like the Highway Trust Fund – which are separate from the annual appropriations process – or their employees are deemed essential and will therefore continue to work during a funding lapse.

This year, however, the Trump administration has threatened to use a shutdown as justification for additional federal workforce reductions, but it’s unclear how government employees will be affected, including those working at agencies within the U.S. Department of Transportation.

“DOT modal agencies are largely charged with safety functions, so anytime you cut from that you run the risk of decreasing safety,” Jameson Rice, a transportation lawyer and partner with the law firm Holland & Knight. “It may not be felt immediately, but you will in the long term.”

In the short term, however, safety functions related to domestic goods movement, such as roadside inspections carried out by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and rail accident investigations and safety advisories under the Federal Railroad Administration, would continue, according to DOT’s most recent funding lapse shut-down plans.

At the U.S. Maritime Administration, where approximately 25% of its workforce is expected to be furloughed, vessel security and port infrastructure programs would continue using “carry forward balances” as would staff needed to oversee those programs and services.

Cargo inspection of imports through land borders and seaports would also continue, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Roughly 93% of the agency’s 68,000-person workforce are expected to be retained and continue to work during a funding lapse, the Department of Homeland Security’s latest contingency plan notes.

However, while most CBP employees are considered essential, that may not necessarily be the case at other agencies that have inspection oversight of cargo shipments, such as the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

For example, during a lapse in appropriations, activities at CPSC such as field investigations, product testing, and recalls could cease during a lapse, according to recent contingency plans, which potentially could disrupt cross-border trade and supply chains.

“What sometimes is not considered essential are additional reviews of cargo shipments that might be required and are conducted by government agencies other than CBP,” Cindy Allen, an international trade consultant and a former CBP executive director, told FreightWaves.

“So products subject to government oversight that may require additional review or testing might be impacted, which means potentially slowing freight flows.”

Other government agencies that affect freight markets, and the effect a shutdown could have on operations (based on their most recent contingency plans), include:

Federal Maritime Commission

Because most of the FMC’s employees are funded by annual appropriations, the commission, which regulates the U.S. international container trades, will be hit hard by a shutdown.

All work will cease “that furthers the agency’s mission to ensure a competitive and reliable international ocean transportation supply system that supports the U.S. economy and protects the public from unfair and deceptive practices,” according to the agency’s most recent shutdown plan.

Surface Transportation Board

Activities at the STB having to do with case processing, regulatory filings, and most litigation will likely be suspended in the case of funding lapse. That includes procedural schedules, oral arguments and voting conferences, data collection and analysis, and staff meetings with stakeholders will all be suspended.

Depending on how long the shutdown lasts, STB’s schedule for reviewing Union Pacific’s $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern could be affected.

U.S. Coast Guard

Approximately 95% of the U.S. Coast Guard’s 52,377 active duty and civilian workforce will be retained in the case of a shutdown, according to DHS, which means inspections of U.S.- and foreign-flag vessels entering U.S. ports, waterfront facility security, and container inspection enforcement will continue.