Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway – which we have been following and watching take, then increase its stake in Occidential Petroleum for years – has finally tipped its hand at what it’s end game with the company could be.

While many had speculated Buffett would eventually take all of Occidental private, Berkshire is instead in advanced talks to buy Occidental’s petrochemical business, OxyChem, for about $10 billion, according to the Wall Street Journal.

A deal could be finalized within days and would mark Berkshire’s largest acquisition since 2022.

Occidental, best known for its oil-and-gas operations, is valued at roughly $46 billion and already counts Berkshire as its biggest shareholder. OxyChem, which makes chemicals used in water treatment, battery recycling, and paper production, generated nearly $5 billion in sales in the year through June.

WSJ writes that if completed, this would be Buffett’s second major chemicals bet. Back in 2011, Berkshire purchased Lubrizol for close to $10 billion. His last large deal was the $11.6 billion takeover of insurer Alleghany in 2022.

Buffett’s ties to Occidental date to 2019, when he invested $10 billion in preferred shares to help CEO Vicki Hollub outbid Chevron for Anadarko. While that transaction burdened Occidental with debt and drew fire from Carl Icahn, Buffett steadily accumulated shares and now owns about 28% of the company. Occidental has since been selling assets and repaid $7.5 billion of debt as of August.

Meanwhile, Berkshire is flush with a record $344 billion in cash and Treasurys. As Buffett put it earlier this year: “Berkshire will never prefer ownership of cash-equivalent assets over the ownership of good businesses, whether controlled or only partially owned.”

Energy assets, especially in oil and gas, still look cheap in today’s market and continue to believe relatively unloved as the market continues its focus on tech and AI. We wouldn’t be surprised to see more take-private or merger activity follow this deal.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Judge William Young has had a distinguished career since his appointment by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, including serving as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

At 85, his career includes notable cases such as the Boston Strangler and the Shoe Bomber. However, his 161-page opinion declaring the Trump Administration in violation of the First Amendment over visa denials is nothing short of bizarre. 

It starts as a type of letter to an anonymous person who sent the judge a postcard.

Here is how the caption appeared in

Here is a closer image:

The opinion then ends with this conclusion:

With all due respect to Judge Young (who warrants considerable respect after his remarkable career), the captioning and conclusion are improvisational, impulsive, and injudicious. The court injected a political dialogic element in an opinion with sweeping implications for our constitutional system.

I have previously disagreed with some of these measures and agree with some points in this opinion. For those currently in this country, I have long supported free speech protections. That said, I expect that the Administration has the advantage on visa applicants outside of the country. The courts are already working to sort this out and it is likely to result in a split resolution. However, the tenor and odd elements of this opinion take away from these points.

It is an example of yielding to impulse, a problem that I have previously addressed with district court judges after the Trump inauguration.

The trend has even reached the Supreme Court on occasion.

Take District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who had previously presided over Trump’s election interference case. Chutkan was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.

Chutkan later decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”

Chutkan’s colleague Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, lashed out at Trump’s actions, writing, “[T]his Court cannot let stand the revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”

Other judges have engaged in extrajudicial commentary from the bench that undermines the integrity of the court system and their own authority.

The bizarre captioning and conclusion in this case is another such example. It only served to undermine the opinion itself and the legal points raised by the court. It may have been cathartic, but it was also tedious and prejudicial. It has a certain chest-pounding element that is neither necessary nor compelling for a court to insert into an opinion.

Judge Young would be wise to issue a corrected opinion without the novel captioning and conclusion . . . and simply send a postcard to this curious penpal.

*  *  *

Need a daily drink to boost your brain? Get 3+ and subscribe for 20% off… 

The US and Qatar have signed an unprecedented agreement which is similar to Article 5 in NATO, in which an attack on Qatar is considered a threat to the security of the US.

The robust security guarantees are spelled out in the deal posted to the White House website on Wednesday: “The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.”

“In the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures including diplomatic, economic, and if necessary, military, to defend the interests of the United States and of Qatar,” it adds.

This is a clear vow to “guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the state of Qatar against external attack.” Is this what the White House is calling America First policy? 

Of course, the United States already has a significant military base, the sprawling Al Udeid Air Base, located west of Doha, which is defended by Patriot missile batteries.

But now presumably this American air defense shield will extend over the whole of the tiny oil and gas monarchy’s territory.

Already the past year has seen active US intercepts of missiles sent by Iran, and yet last month’s Israeli attack on a Hamas office in Doha was allowed by US defenses.

But this new major security deal appears part of Trump’s ‘regret’ to Qatar in the wake of that controversial attack, which killed five top Hamas negotiators and a Qatari security guard.

Trump on Monday while hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made him apologize to Qatar’s leaders in a somewhat humiliating phone call and photo op, later published by the White House…

The White House has released a photo of President Trump holding the phone in his lap as Netanyahu reads the apology letter to Qatar. pic.twitter.com/3Qb8yWFqdI

— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) September 30, 2025

As for US-Qatar relations, they were deepened especially during the decade-plus long war of regime change against Assad. Qatar even hosted FSA and jihadi training camps, reportedly ran by the CIA and likely American special forces.

Ultimately, the US-Gulf-Israel axis is still strong, despite the Gaza war, which is also what this new defense pact demonstrates. Some analysts are saying it further prepares the US-Gulf axis for the next round of fighting with Iran. For example Mideast observer Kevork Almassian writes:

Make no mistake: this is about the future U.S./Israeli war with Iran. Consider the implications: if Iran retaliates against Qatar for hosting U.S. and Israeli operations, Washington can immediately declare that an attack on Qatar is an attack on U.S. interests. From there, it’s a short step to claim: Attack on Qatar = attack on the U.S. = attack on a NATO member = Article 5 triggered.

This is indeed recipe for more US quagmires and foreign interventionism in the Middle East, and Congress remains silent, as has become typcial.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

More than 400 illegal immigrants were arrested during a week-long immigration enforcement operation in central Florida last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) said on Sept. 30.

ICE said that the operation, carried out between Sept. 22 and Sept. 26, targeted illegal immigrants with “outstanding criminal warrants” and those who are subject to deportation.

“Many of these individuals illegally remained in Florida and have gone on to wreak havoc in our local neighborhoods,” ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Miami Field Office Director Garrett Ripa said in a statement.

ICE said that all the detainees will be subject to removal proceedings in accordance with federal immigration law.

The operation was led by ICE Miami in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and multiple local law enforcement agencies, including the Florida Highway Patrol and the Florida National Guard, according to the agency.

Florida is leading nationwide in 287(g) partnerships, with 327 agreements currently in place, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The agreements allow local law enforcement agencies to carry out certain immigration duties, including identifying and processing removable illegal immigrants who face criminal charges.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin praised the operation in central Florida, noting that the detainees included individuals convicted of criminal offenses such as “lewd and lascivious behavior, battery, domestic violence, prostitution, vehicle theft, hit and run, and driving under the influence.”

“This was another successful operation to arrest the worst of the worst with our Florida state and local partners and can serve as a blueprint nationwide,” McLaughlin said, calling on other states to follow suit.

The Trump administration has ramped up efforts to arrest and deport illegal immigrants across the country.

The DHS said on Sept. 23 that federal immigration authorities have removed more than 2 million illegal immigrants since President Donald Trump took office.

That figure includes an estimated 1.6 million illegal immigrants who voluntarily self-deported, and more than 400,000 who were removed, according to the department.

After taking office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order aimed at securing the United States’ borders, directing his administration to build barriers at the border, deter and prevent the entry of illegal immigrants, remove “promptly all aliens who enter or remain in violation of federal law,” and pursue criminal charges “against illegal aliens who violate the immigration laws.”

The order said the United States has seen a “large-scale invasion at an unprecedented level” over the past four years, with millions of illegal immigrants entering the country, including potential terrorists, foreign spies, members of cartels, and other hostile actors with malicious intent.

Stuart Liess contributed to this report.

*  *  *

For Him // For Her // Save the planet

Goldman analysts find that a softening labor market, slowing traffic at major QSR chains, and intensifying competition are raising investor concerns about ready-to-drink (RTD) and specialty coffee demand. Since Gen Z is a key driver of RTD coffee at QSRs, the analysts highlight several “swing factors” to watch that could influence demand from this younger cohort.

“We are observing rising investor concerns about the coffee category’s macro and competitive backdrop,” a team of analysts led by Christine Cho wrote in a note on Tuesday. 

Cho listed some of those key pressure points: 

1. Softening labor-market data, which is notable given that younger consumers have been a key growth engine for coffee and beverages in recent years;

2. Signs of 3QTD traffic deceleration across the broader coffee market; and

3. QSR brands’ stepped up focus on beverage opportunities (i.e., MCD’s new beverage test in hundreds of stores in the US and Taco Bell’s plans to open 30 Live Mas Cafes by the end of the year).

Here’s more: 

We have observed a modest uptick in SBUX’s foot traffic trends in the top 3 coffee markets post the fall menu launch on Aug 26 vs. some deceleration in BROS’ trends as per our latest Placer data analysis, and while it’s early, McDonald’s has gained 80 bps share of foot traffic in Colorado from 9/1-9/25/25 since the launch of its beverage tests on Sep 2 (Exhibit 4). We believe there are a number of key swing factors to watch for over the next few months including Gen Z spending intentions, Starbucks’ launch of protein beverage / cold foam platform on Sep 29 and whether that influences net purchase intentions. That said, we maintain our Neutral ratings on SBUX and BROS as we await more clarity in these trends.

How will increased coffee/beverage competition impact existing market players?

On July 24, McDonald’s announced a CosMc’s-inspired beverage test across 500+ restaurants in Colorado, Wisconsin, and surrounding areas as consumers, particularly the Gen Z cohort, prefer cold beverages (link). This reflects a broader shift toward beverages we’ve seen across the restaurant industry as brands aim to capitalize on shifting coffee preferences (~40% of LSR offerings are now cold), with Taco Bell (Live Mas Cafe) and Chick-fil-A (Daybright) also testing beverage concepts and Wendy’s launching cold brew coffee in August. Additionally, Jack in the Box announced the return of bigger cup sizes (25% more ounces) starting October 1 amid the stepped up value narrative across the industry. We think this could translate to intensifying competition in the coffee market especially for Dutch Bros, given that the brand has differentiated itself through its unique iced beverages and preference among younger consumers.

McDonald’s beverages per ounce are priced at a discount of high teens/low 40% on average vs. Dutch Bros/Starbucks, respectively, based on our analysis of menu pricing for an array of offerings across 11 cities in Colorado as a way to assess which brands offer strong value in an increasingly competitive environment (Exhibit 3). Notably, Starbucks did not have any comparable offerings for two of the six categories analyzed, as the company aims to reduce operational complexity through a simplified menu, and offered the most expensive option across the remaining four categories.

For cash-strapped consumers, McDonald’s offers the best RTD prices (at least in Colorado).

Coffee demand remains dismal. 

Given that Gen Z significantly drives coffee demand, analysts point to rising youth unemployment as a potential factor behind the slump in sales.

And soaring coffee bean prices don’t help with price affordability. 

The takeaway is that the coffee market is facing mounting macroeconomic headwinds and intensifying competition, just as unemployment among Gen Zers ticks higher. A soft labor market, slowing traffic, and aggressive QSR beverage rollouts (McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Chick-fil-A, Wendy’s) are eroding demand momentum. Starbucks still commands premium pricing but risks losing share to cheaper, value-oriented rivals like McDonald’s. 

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can access the full note, with all the charts and deeper analysis, in the usual spot.

Value wars between Amazon and Walmart to attract cash-strapped consumers are heating up late in the year. Amazon announced on Wednesday morning the launch of a new private-label line called “Amazon Grocery,” which spans more than 1,000 products and is largely priced under $5. The timing couldn’t be better, as our attention has shifted to a storm brewing in the low-income consumer world.

Amazon Grocery will be a direct competitor to Walmart, Aldi, and other value grocery chains, offering affordable private-label goods amid ongoing value wars (read report). The new line will feature dairy, fresh produce, meat, snacks, and pantry staples priced under $5, an easy hook for low-income consumers. Another selling point: more than 1,000 items can be delivered straight to consumers’ doors, saving them the time and hassle of driving to the supermarket and pushing a cart down the aisles. 

“The extensive selection includes everything from milk and olive oil to fresh produce, meat and seafood, with most products priced under $5, offering exceptional value to customers,” Amazon wrote in a press release. 

“With Amazon Grocery, we’re simplifying how customers discover and shop our extensive private label food selection while maintaining the quality and value our customers expect and deserve,” Jason Buechel, Vice President of Amazon Worldwide Grocery Stores and Chief Executive Officer at Whole Foods Market, wrote in a press release. 

Buechel noted, “During a time when consumers are particularly price-conscious, Amazon Grocery delivers more than 1,000 quality grocery items across all categories that don’t compromise on quality or taste – from fresh food items to crave-worthy snacks and pantry essentials – all at low, competitive prices that help customers stretch their grocery budgets further.”

Amazon has long operated a large online grocery business, selling household basics, paper products, and cleaning supplies. In recent years, it has doubled down on physical retail through Whole Foods Market, Amazon Fresh supermarkets, and convenience stores. 

The timing of Amazon Grocery comes at a critical moment, following the sudden collapse of subprime auto lender Tricolor Holdings and CarMax’s earnings miss, which has shifted our focus onto the financial health of low-income consumers as cracks begin to appear.

This week, Goldman’s consumer sector specialist, Scott Feiler, and financials sector specialist, Christian DeGrasse, both noted that low-income trades are under pressure, pointing to Tricolor and CarMax as potential drivers that have set off alarm bells among investors.

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Out with chicken nuggets and foot-long hot dogs, in with locally grown vegetables and lentil tacos.

In the months and years ahead, school cafeteria trays could look much different as some state and federal lawmakers push to restrict ultra-processed foods in K–12 public schools, under the premise of assisting students to be happier, healthier, and higher-achieving.

Arizona, California, Louisiana, Utah, and Virginia passed laws removing unhealthy products, ingredients, or food dyes from school cafeterias, with healthier choices being phased in within the next two academic years. Similar legislation is pending in Hawaii, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, according to the websites of their respective state legislatures.

Foods that are considered “ultra-processed” have an abundance of additives and preservatives and are linked to chronic health issues such as obesity and diabetes, according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ Make Our Children Healthy Again guidance released on Sept. 9.

“The American diet has shifted dramatically toward highly processed foods, leading to nutrient depletion, increased caloric intake, and exposure to potentially harmful or unhealthy additives,” the guidance reads.

Ultra-Processed Foods and Scratch Kitchens 

The Chef Ann Foundation defines ultra-processed foods as those that are chemically manipulated with ingredients such as corn, soy, and wheat extracts to extend shelf life, improve flavor, and enhance appearance. It also includes additives such as sugar, sodium, dyes, preservatives, and other chemicals to change the texture or increase the volume of feeds. Artificial ingredients are used to replace the vitamins and minerals lost as the result of processing and packaging.

Ultra-processed foods are less filling yet contain more calories than minimally processed foods, leading consumers to eat faster and consume more.

Chef Ann Foundation CEO Mara Fleishman said that, beyond cafeteria employee training and kitchen upgrades from heat-and-serve equipment to a scratch cooking setup, the other major necessary investment is increased funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which currently provides $4.50 per school lunch.

Fleishman told The Epoch Times via email that the bipartisan federal Scratch Cooked Meals for Students Act—a USDA pilot program that provides school cafeterias with refrigerators, convection ovens, steamers, and prep spaces—will be reintroduced in the next legislative session.

Most schools built around the middle of the 20th century were equipped with large kitchens designed for scratch cooking, but quality and nutrition took a back seat to efficiency and cost savings in the decades that followed.

By the 1980s, new schools were being built with smaller heat-and-serve operations, and older schools were shrinking their cafeterias to free up space for other functions. Districts that returned to scratch cooking are more likely to have a large central kitchen and transport the meals to their schools, according to Danielle Bock, director of nutritional services for the Greeley-Evans-Weld County School District in Colorado.

During a Sept. 9 House Health Care and Financial Services Subcommittee hearing on childhood nutrition and medication, legislators noted that about one-third of U.S. adolescent children are pre-diabetic and/or obese. Eve Stoody, director of the USDA’s Nutrition Guidance and Analysis Division, said about 61.9 percent of the calories consumed by U.S. youth are considered ultra-processed.

Stoody is working with Health and Human Services to develop a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods for future federal guidance on school menus. Although sodas, salty snacks, and candy are obvious examples, it’s still unclear whether yogurts, bagged salads, and canned vegetables are acceptable menu items.

“There have been discussions that some of these definitions are really broad,” she said.

Parents, Children Weigh In

The MAHA report provides several examples of other nations that serve whole foods for school lunches, including Brazil and countries across Northern Europe. Still, it doesn’t take into account that, for millions of students worldwide, having meals at school is a foreign concept.

Sarah Berner, an 11th-grade exchange student from Germany currently attending Cazenovia High School in upstate New York, said her schools back home always offered doughnuts in the morning and bread as a snack throughout the day. She and her classmates always went home for their afternoon meal before returning to class. Her first and only hot school lunch, eaten shortly after arriving in the United States, was a cheeseburger.

“It was good, I think. But I wouldn’t eat it again,” she told The Epoch Times.

Rowan Wallace, a sophomore in the district whose family is hosting Berner, said the school cafeteria has improved during her 11 years as a student. Hot dogs and pizza are no longer commonplace. The latest menu items—cheese-and-cracker bento boxes with yogurt parfaits—were very good, she said. Still, she said, she misses the deli sandwiches that are no longer offered and would like to see more whole-grain items and chia pudding.

Her mother, Julie Wallace, said the cafeteria does a good job with healthy grab-and-go items for busy high school students who don’t get a lunch period when they have band or chorus practice. She said she thinks that homemade granola bars would be the perfect afternoon energy-booster for teens who have sports practices or school club gatherings after school.

In Utah, state Rep. Kristen Chevrier said she based her bill calling for removal of additives and dyes from school foods on what she witnessed in her state’s Granite School District’s prep kitchen: large vats of homemade salsa, a conveyor belt of locally grown potatoes with minimal seasoning, and a panel of student taste-testers judging the flavor of new menu items—chicken sandwiches and burrito bowls.

“Moms approached me about getting rid of the toxins in school food,” Chevrier told The Epoch Times. “My own children have food sensitivities, so I understand what they mean.

“The closer we can get to natural and fewer ingredients, the better.”

Little Wiggle Room

School districts that receive USDA reimbursement funding for school lunches must follow guidelines that dictate serving sizes, types of food (fruits, vegetables, meats, and grains), calorie counts, and limits on saturated fat, sugar, and sodium. States can add restrictions. Current guidelines don’t address ultra-processed foods, according to the USDA website.

Schools purchase some foods directly from the USDA, and the federal agency regulates processed food manufacturers. For example, Post and General Mills make cereals with reduced sugar content specifically for schools. Districts are required to self-audit their food purchases and their meal preparation, and both functions are subject to state and federal level audits, according to Duncan Sproule, who worked as a school food services manager in urban and suburban districts in Syracuse, New York.

Sproule recalled an incident involving whole-grain pasta from the USDA. It didn’t hold its shape well, was difficult to serve, and was unpopular among the students. The remaining cases of the product were donated to local food pantries; the school spent local tax dollars to substitute regular pasta. Most districts rely on state and federal funding for meals and must carefully set aside money on a long-term basis to replace equipment.

“The margins are very tight,” Sproule told The Epoch Times.

Dave Bartholomew, who managed public school food service operations in the Central New York area for 35 years, said providing fresher foods in cold-weather states with short growing seasons is a tall task.

The USDA expects much from schools, he said, recalling the requirements to continue food service during the COVID-19 pandemic and getting meals to students in remote areas during winter storms.

“Improving the nutrition is a good thing, but it will need to be done very slowly and very meticulously,” Bartholomew told The Epoch Times.

“To understand the regulations we’re already dealing with, the politicians need to spend time in a cafeteria. Don’t just visit it. Go work in it for a day.”

School Food Service Already Changing

In upstate New York, school districts complied with stricter school lunch requirements set by President Barack Obama, Sproule recalled, noting that the chicken sandwich menu item decreased by less than 1 ounce and whole-grain rolls replaced white breads.

Dana Canino, child nutrition director at the Granite School District, said even the condiments in her central kitchen, which serves 80 schools, are homemade. She said she buys as much food as possible from local farmers, including fruits, whole wheat flour, and beef. Food prices have fluctuated since the COVID-19 pandemic, she said, so it’s too soon to gauge if whole food preparation is cheaper.

Bock said that in her Colorado district, school food service operations are still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted supply chains, decreased the labor force, and required the return of certain processed foods for sanitary reasons and heat-and-serve operations to accommodate children in their classrooms instead of cafeterias.

“We’re able to get back to scratch because we have culinary control over our ingredients,” she said.

Utah’s law takes effect for the next school year. State Sen. Heidi Balderree, who co-sponsored Chevrier’s bill, said many districts across her state won’t have to make drastic changes to comply with the new regulations beyond removing “chips and Jello.”

In addition to expected improvements in academic performance, Balderree said, Utah agriculture could enjoy growth if lawmakers undo regulations and smooth out supply chain issues to get farm-fresh products to school kitchens promptly.

“The more autonomous we can be, the better we’ll be,” she told The Epoch Times. “In the long run, it’s a wise thing to do.”

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the way we complete tasks, and it’s becoming a part of our everyday lives. But like many technological innovations, AI can be a double-edged sword.

It can make life easier. And it can open the door to a new generation of scammers and fraudsters who can steal everything from your money to your identity. So it’s important to know what you’re up against in the modern world.

Deep-Fake Voice Cloning

Believe it or not, you may get a call from a robot claiming to be a loved one stating they’re in a desperate situation and need money. But before you reach for your debit card, understand this may be a scam.

It could be tied to what’s called voice cloning. Scammers gather a clip of someone speaking from anywhere including social media. They then use voice synthesis technology to generate new speech that sounds identical to the voice they analyzed.

These tricks are also known as grandparent scams, because thieves often dupe older individuals into thinking they are their grandchildren in urgent need of money.

And that’s key. Voice-cloning scammers often create an extreme sense of urgency. If you feel the call is too intense, it’s okay to hang up. Call the person directly and ask about the situation, if any.

Some experts also recommend that you use secret phrases among your loved ones in order to confirm their identity. But be sure to make it as obscure as possible. Don’t make it something users can find on their social media pages. And don’t share it through email or anywhere else, as these can be compromised as well. It should only be shared through word of mouth among your loved ones.

But what happens when it’s not a loved one, but someone you admire? Voice-cloning scammers have been known to duplicate the voices of celebrities and public officials to generate robo calls that trick people into donating to a cause or investment scheme.

You should immediately hang up on these types of calls. And if you’re really curious, you may want to check on the official websites or verified social media profiles of these individuals to see if they are involved with any organization.

Deep-Fake Video Calls

This trick is similar to a voice-cloning call. But it adds another convincing layer: video. Scammers use AI-generated videos of fake people or real people like your loved ones to make video calls. In these situations, they also may create a sense of urgency and ask for money. They may direct you to a malicious website where you’re tricked into providing sensitive financial information that the scammer can steal.

The rule of thumb is that if it seems incredibly urgent and requires money, a red flag should go up. Hang up the call and contact the person in question directly if possible. And beware of these videos elsewhere. They can appear in online advertisements and across social media—often involving celebrities and news anchors.

Fake Stores and Marketplaces

Scammers may create AI-generated malicious websites. In some cases, these websites serve as fake stores or marketplaces. You may find the links to these malicious sites on social media or via text or email.

In some cases, they’ll list a popular product that you’ve been searching for at an exceptionally discounted price. But if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The scammer would take your financial information to “process the order,” and you’ll never receive the product. The bad actor would instead keep your sensitive financial information and either sell it on the dark web or use it to make fraudulent purchases.

But these go beyond popular products. They could also involve listings for apartments and houses.

If you believe you’ve been a victim of this type of scam, it’s important that you contact your financial institution immediately to see how you may proceed. In some cases, you may be able to get your money back.

But if you feel you’ve been a victim of any type of scam, it’s also important to report it to the Federal Trade Commission at ReportFraud.ftc.gov.

AI Phishing

Phishing has long been a favorite for scammers. They often involve emails disguised to seem like they are coming from legitimate sources like your employer, a loved one, or a government agency. But a scammer uses these emails to trick you into sending money or divulging sensitive information like your financial information, passwords, and Social Security number. In some cases, they also send links that actually lead to a fraudulent website or malware designed to destroy your device and steal sensitive information.

Back in the day, you could spot a phishing email by looking for things like typos, grammatical errors, non-legitimate email addresses, and more. But AI has muscled up these emails, and they now seem more convincing than ever. So if you see an email claiming to be from a legitimate source and asking for things like money or your sensitive information, close the email. Don’t click on any links. Delete it.

Reach out to the organization in question directly via an official phone number or through their official website.

And keep in mind that financial institutions and businesses would never ask for your password via email, call, or text.

The Bottom Line

AI has made completing tasks easier for many. But that also applies to scammers and fraudsters. Criminals are now armed with the most sophisticated technology, and they’re using it to prey on unsuspecting victims. You may fall for tricks like deep-fake phone or video calls, as well as AI-assisted phishing scams. As a result, you could lose everything from your bank account to your retirement savings—even your own identity.

This is why you must remain vigilant. Beware of any type of communication that involves giving up money or sensitive information like your passwords, financial information, and Social Security number. Take a deep breath and carefully analyze what’s in front of you. It may also help to contact a trusted friend. Sometimes, an extra set of eyes can help identify a scam in progress.

The GEO Group’s subsidiary, BI Incorporated, secured a two-year contract extension with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to continue operating the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), which provides electronic monitoring, case management, and supervision services for illegal aliens. The contract supplies the federal government with critical logistical support in its efforts to deport criminal illegal aliens who invaded the country under nation-killing open border policies enforced by the globalist-aligned Biden-Harris regime. 

BI’s two-year contract extension to continue ISAP work in support of the Trump administration’s illegal alien deportation program was effective today, with an additional one-year option period. BI does not directly deport illegals, and that is carried out by ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO).

Here are the highlights: 

• Contract Terms: Two-year award, beginning October 1, with an initial one-year term and a one-year option to extend.

• Scope of Services: Electronic monitoring, case management, and supervision of individuals under ISAP. BI has been providing these services for over two decades. 

• Track Record: BI operates through a nationwide network of 100 offices and nearly 1,000 employees, maintaining high compliance rates with its technology and case management solutions. 

Executive Chairman of GEO, George C. Zoley, stated, “We appreciate the confidence that ICE has placed in our company. We believe this important contract award is a testament to the high-quality electronic monitoring and case management services BI has consistently delivered under the ISAP contract through a nationwide network of approximately 100 offices and close to 1,000 employees.“

Early in September, we pointed out…

If the US is about to put all of its recidivist offenders (generously released by Soros judges) back in prison, GEO Group is about to become the next NVDA

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 9, 2025

Fast forward.

Starting

The GEO Group Awarded Contract by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for Continued Provision of Services Under Intensive Supervision Appearance Program https://t.co/xZUS73YItn

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 1, 2025

Shares of GEO jumped nearly 9% in late-morning cash trading in New York, marking their biggest gain in 6.5 months. Despite the rally, the stock remains down 20% year-to-date, though still trading well above levels when prices spiked after a Trump presidential win in early November. 

. . . 

Authored by Benjamin Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

When Jeffrey Clark was tapped to lead the second Trump administration’s chief regulatory review office, it marked an astonishing redemption. 

For years, congressional investigators and prosecutors had pursued the former Department of Justice official primarily over an unsent letter he drafted, in support of President Trump’s 2020 election challenge, calling for Georgia to consider launching a last-minute legislative session to review its results.

Trump’s return to power has not ended Clark’s troubles: Washington, D.C.’s legal disciplinary authority has recommended he be disbarred over his conduct from five years ago. Lawyers for Clark claim that the effort seeks to punish “thought crime” regarding their client’s belief in potential irregularities in an election that authorities declared devoid of widespread fraud.

Even as President Trump’s critics now claim he is engaging in retribution against a wide range of past assailants, including former FBI Director James Comey, his supporters say Clark’s case reveals there is an ongoing, politically motivated push to punish MAGA advocates. In their telling, the president’s adversaries who weaponized the justice system through “lawfare” have opened another front in their war through “barfare.” 

The Rise of Barfare

Since 2020, Democratic officials and progressive groups established specifically to target conservatives have lodged bar complaints against dozens of Trump-allied attorneys such as Clark. While supporters of these efforts say they are trying to hold officeholders and advocates accountable for actions that betrayed the canons of ethical legal practice, conservative opponents say the push to punish their political foes via bar complaints, often brought in politically partisan jurisdictions, threatens not only the ability of presidents to receive counsel but the American legal system itself.

“The most politicized situations are the ones where the bar should be the most reticent,” to consider punishing attorneys over their work, James Burnham, former DOGE general counsel, said during a recent panel discussion on alleged bar weaponization hosted by the right-leaning Federalist Society. “That’s when lawyers are supposed to be the most creative and the most aggressive. But it’s not the kind of situation where we want lawyers to be afraid to even engage in advocacy in the first place.”

The Clark complaint concerned his activities in the final weeks of the first Trump administration, while he served in part as acting assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. Clark, an environmental and regulatory lawyer by background, believed that there was potentially election-altering fraud or irregularities in Georgia and other states, requiring resolution before the fast-approaching January 6, 2021, election certification date.

In response, he wrote a draft letter dated Dec. 28 and addressed to Georgia leaders recommending that the state legislature convene a special session to further probe potential irregularities and take remedial steps as necessary if they impacted the election outcome. 

Clark circulated the letter to acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue, who were responsible for probing 2020 election issues. Rosen and Donoghue disagreed with its thrust – especially the suggestion that there was potentially election-altering fraud – and declined to sign and deliver it.

Trump Gets Wind

As Trump’s election challenge proceeded, he got wind of Clark’s views. Apparently finding an ally, the president floated the idea of making Clark acting attorney general. Clark allegedly offered to decline any such appointment if Rosen would sign off on the letter, the then-Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee would later report – an allegation Clark would flatly deny. In opposition to a possible appointment, Clark’s superiors convened a Jan. 3, 2021, meeting with President Trump and other officials, at which several said they and other colleagues would resign en masse should the president elevate him. 

Ultimately, the president backed off, and Clark’s letter was consigned to the ashbin of history – until one or several ex-Trump administration officials leaked word of its existence and contents to the New York Times. The Times wrote about Clark’s efforts in a Jan. 22 article titled “Trump and Justice Dept. Lawyer Said to Have Plotted to Oust Acting Attorney General.”

A flurry of probes pertaining to the president’s election challenge would follow. Clark – a Harvard- and Georgetown-educated litigator who had spent the bulk of his career as a partner at white-shoe law firm Kirland & Ellis – would spend the next several years facing the scrutiny of congressional committees, including the Democrat-dominated January 6 Committee, and prosecution in cases brought by Fani Willis in Fulton County, Georgia, and Special Counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In June 2022, he was forced to wait outside his home in his undergarments while federal investigators searched his suburban Virginia residence, seizing electronic devices in connection with their January 6 probe. 

In July 2022, in response to a complaint lodged by the then-Democrat-led Senate, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility charged Clark with violating the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct. It accused him of engaging “in conduct involving dishonesty” by drafting the letter the board alleged contained false statements, and for “attempt[ing] to engage in conduct that would seriously interfere with the administration of justice.” 

The allegations against Clark rested in part on the argument that because his superiors disagreed with his views on potential election fraud in Georgia, Clark’s assertions in the letter were fraudulent.

Unprecedented Case

In his defense, Clark invoked a slew of privileges, and raised myriad procedural and substantive arguments – including that the local D.C. disciplinary board lacked jurisdiction over Clark’s conduct as a federal lawyer providing counsel to the president; that Clark enjoyed immunity from liability while rendering advice to the president; and that the purported false statements were merely proposed Justice Department positions for consideration by superiors – positions largely consistent, as his lawyers noted, with those raised by several U.S. Supreme Court justices and nearly 20 state attorneys general.

Clark’s lawyers argued during his trial that “[N]o one has ever been charged by the D.C. Bar with attempted dishonesty in a draft letter that recommended a change in policy or position where that document was not approved and never even left the office.” 

His lawyers made the point that sanctioning him for such conduct would lead to a limitless array of disciplinary actions against attorneys over private or internal deliberations on behalf of clients should they hold contrarian views.

Government “lawyers will be afraid to give their candid opinions for fear of losing their careers. Likewise, lawyers will not join government for the same reason,” Harry MacDougald, one of Clark’s lawyers, told RealClearInvestigations.

On July 31, 2025, despite acknowledging “that there are no factually comparable prior disciplinary cases,” a majority of the board recommended that Clark be disbarred. While rejecting Clark’s arguments, including that he was protected as a government lawyer giving advice, the nine-member board said that the charges against him “focus on the truthfulness of the factual assertions” in the letter that he authored. 

Although Clark’s superiors had testified that Clark had “sincere personal concerns” regarding the integrity of the election, the board said, “they also agreed that the Justice Department had not identified potentially outcome-determinative issues in Georgia or other states.”

Therefore, his continued efforts to press officials to send the letter “constituted an attempt to make intentionally false statements about the results of the Justice Department’s investigation,” the board said.

The tribunal added that Clark “should be disbarred as a consequence and to send a message to the rest of the Bar and to the public that this behavior will not be tolerated.”

The disbarment decision is pending before the D.C. Court of Appeals, which has final say over such decisions in the nation’s capital.

Claims of Unequal Justice

In an August 2025 filing with the appeals court obtained by RCI detailing Clark’s exceptions to the board’s order, his counsel contrasted the disciplinary tribunal’s treatment of the Justice Department lawyer with that of FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith. He received just a one-year suspension for doctoring a document submitted to the FISA Court supporting the government’s FISA warrant application that enabled them to surveil Trump adviser Carter Page.

“The disciplinary process in the D.C. bar is radically disparate according to the political affiliation and views of the respondent attorney,” Clark’s lawyers charged.

A preliminary review of public records indicates that a majority of the board that made the Clark recommendation was comprised of registered Democrats, individuals who had contributed to Democrat candidates, or public advocates of progressive causes. Only one board member was publicly identifiable as a Republican.

The board recommendation followed a trial before a separate three-member panel, at least two of whom were registered Democrats and had contributed financially to Democratic Party candidates, public records show. 

The Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which handed down the original charges against Clark and effectively prosecutes such cases, is also headed by an attorney, Hamilton P. Fox III, who, according to public records, is a Democrat.

“D.C. voted Democrat more than 90% against Trump all three times he was on the ballot – the most lopsided margin in the country to have its own Bar,” MacDougald noted on X in a response to the disciplinary authority’s decision.

Many prominent Republicans also took issue with the actions of Trump and his confidantes in challenging the 2020 election. This includes the sole publicly identifiable Republican board member, Margaret M. Cassidy, a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association who concurred in the recommendation that Clark be disbarred.

After the panel handed down its recommendation to disbar Clark, MacDougald told RCI, “the reason Jeff has been singled out is lawfare – straight up political persecution.”

With the Clark disbarment decision now in the hands of federal judges, the lawyer may have just gotten a big boost. On Sept. 25, three former attorneys general submitted an amicus brief in support of his case. William P. Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey – all Republican-appointed prosecutors, but not all supportive of Clark’s conduct – echoed his arguments in writing:

“The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility…has no business – indeed, no authority whatever – in policing internal deliberative discussions and documents exchanged within the federal Executive Branch for containing purportedly ‘dishonest’ (yet somehow also ‘sincere’) ideas or assertions,” they said.

They added that “immunity for top advisors is necessary to ensure that the President may receive candid and necessary advice prior to acting.”

“Although we are not persuaded by Mr. Clark’s proposed legal strategy, and former Attorney General Barr has publicly criticized it in no uncertain terms, disbarring or otherwise disciplining Mr. Clark for those actions would set a dangerous precedent that would significantly interfere with Executive Branch functions,” while sending a “biting chill throughout the federal government,” they concluded.

Not Alone in the Dock

On the same July day that the D.C. tribunal formally made its recommendation to disbar Clark, three current Justice Department officials were hit with ethics complaints lodged with the bar disciplinary authorities where they are licensed to practice. 

The parallel complaints – targeting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton, Special Counsel Brad Rosenberg, and Trial Attorney Liam Holland – allege they made “intentionally and materially misleading statements” in litigation over the Trump administration’s attempt to curtail the work of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The complaints note that presiding Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the D.C. District Court upbraided the lawyers over certain representations made to the court.

Several ex-DOJ staff members have defended their colleagues, writing that “our former colleagues took immediate steps to correct the record in response to plaintiffs’ evidence,” while noting that “leaving any such inquiry in the first instance to the court and the parties, who have intimate knowledge of the facts and circumstances that state bar authorities lack, would be a far better approach for determining whether sanctionable misconduct occurred.”

The Justice Department did not respond to RCI’s inquiries regarding the complaints against its employees.

The three complaints were filed by the Legal Accountability Center. The advocacy group’s executive director, Michael J. Teter, has said its efforts are aimed at “going on offense in defense of democracy” at a time when “the rule of law is under direct assault.” The organization maintains it is merely seeking to hold to account “attorneys who abuse their power and violate professional conduct rules.” Its financials are unavailable. A broken web link appears to tie the nonprofit to progressive tech billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund.

Among the Legal Accountability Center’s initiatives is The 65 Project. The so-called “dark money” outfit was launched in the wake of the 2020 election to “shame” lawyers who represented President Trump in some 65 lawsuits challenging the election and “make them toxic in their communities and their firms,” according to Democrat operative David Brock, founder of the partisan watchdog group Media Matters, who is one of the group’s advisers.

Billed as a bipartisan effort, The 65 Project is led by staffers with ties to Democratic Party campaigns and causes. Teter, who also serves as its managing director, has worked for candidates including John Kerry and counseled the liberal American Civil Liberties Union. Its senior advisor, Melissa Moss, is a former Clinton appointee and finance director of the Democratic National Committee. 

The 65 Project was originally run through another nonprofit, Moss’ Law Works, which achieved notoriety for hosting a stage adaptation of the Mueller Report performed by Hollywood stars. According to archived websites, The 65 Project was sponsored by the Franklin Education Forum, a supporter of progressive causes previously chaired by Brock, and a grant recipient of Omidyar’s Democracy Fund. 

Neither Teter nor the organizations with which he is affiliated responded to RCI’s inquiries in connection with this story.

Justice or Harassment?

More senior officials, as well, have gotten hit with bar complaints in recent months. In September, the center filed a bar complaint against Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, claiming, among other things, a conflict of interest in his interviewing of Ghislaine Maxwell. It also filed a complaint against Ed Martin, the former U.S. attorney for D.C., asserting he had abused his position and conduct rules by engaging in politically motivated investigations, among other matters. Martin, now a DOJ special attorney, also faces scrutiny from the D.C. disciplinary body. During his tenure as U.S. attorney, he had requested information of that office, citing in part the Clark case, indicating his concern that it might be biased against conservatives. 

Elected Republican officials around the country, including Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, and Lawrence VanDyke, the former solicitor general in Montana and Nevada, and a current judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, have also been targeted.

Judging by their disposition, most of these accusations were of dubious legal merit. A recent analysis of nearly 80 complaints filed by third-party organizations like The 65 Project against attorneys who represented Trump or related causes – many of them Republican state attorneys general – found that in only three instances did attorneys face public discipline.

The conservative group America First Legal filed a bar complaint against Teter last fall for his The 65 Project work, claiming he was abusing the bar disciplinary process in targeting attorneys associated with Trump. It is unclear whether the Utah Bar, which received the complaint, has taken any action.

De-Weaponizing the Bar Discipline Process

Those who believe the bar is being weaponized against those who hold disfavored viewpoints – namely on the right – say corrective action is required. They assert that, beyond pursuing arguments regarding the immunity that federal lawyers ought to have from state and local authorities, there is a First Amendment right to viewpoint diversity that quasi-governmental entities, such as state bar associations, are currently violating. 

Some, such as Michael Francisco, an appellate litigator who formerly clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, believe that “attorneys are not capable of regulating themselves.” 

America First Legal’s Gene Hamilton echoed these remarks, adding during the Federalist Society panel: “I really do think that each of the state bar associations need to take a really hard look at the rules and to modify them to prevent abuses of the disciplinary process.”

Clark’s lawyer, MacDougald, told RCI that ultimately, lawyers advocating for Republican and Democratic causes will be losers if the weaponization of discipline doesn’t end. 

“Lawyers have a job to do and should be allowed to do it,” he said. “State legislatures and State Bar associations must reform themselves and commit to political neutrality or they will destroy themselves and the profession.”