By Molly Schwarz, cross-asset macro strategist at Rabobank

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fatih Birol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the “recission” method…

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

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

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

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

Authored by Charles Kennedy via Oilprice.com,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) September 28, 2026

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

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

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

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

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

They called it “Capture the Castle.” Not a picnic. Not a concert. Capture.

On Saturday morning a 1,000-year-old Norman fortress in Devon was wrapped in a 150-metre rainbow banner while organisers talked about occupying the ramparts and sending a message that the building now belongs to their cause. Nobody has to guess at the intent. They wrote it on the programme.

Totnes Castle sits at the highest point of the hilltop town. Founded around 1087 to lock down a crossing of the River Dart, it is one of England’s best-preserved motte-and-bailey strongholds, a Grade I listed site in the care of English Heritage. On 26 September, as part of a four-day Totnes Pride festival, some 400 people gathered in the grounds while around 30 flag-bearers unfurled the giant Pride flag across the ancient masonry. The spectacle was billed as the defining image of the weekend.

Pride group ‘captures’ 1,000-year-old Norman castle using massive rainbow flaghttps://t.co/3S8DPiUibv

— GB News (@GBNEWS) September 28, 2026

Ceri Goddard of Totnes Pride told the BBC they wanted the festival to be “a bit different,” and that covering “the iconic castle” would show that “queer people have always been here and we always will be.” She said English Heritage had been “amazing, helping us plan,” after a rehearsal to work through the logistics.

A Totnes Pride spokesman said: “Capture the Castle is the image that will define this year’s festival, but what we’ve built around it is a genuinely ambitious arts and culture programme – over 40 events.” The same statement talked of a town that “welcomes people from all walks of life.” Liberal Democrat MP Caroline Voaden praised the “scale, diversity and quality of the Pride festival Totnes has produced,” and said it was “sending a clear message of equality and inclusion.”

That is one reading. Another is the language the organisers chose for themselves. Their own programme invited people to “storm the Castle grounds,” described local flag-bearers who would “invade” the ramparts, and framed the morning as the “most visible, bold and important civic moment” of the weekend.

They literally called it ‘capture the castle’. Ideological occupation. pic.twitter.com/JaSTE2zrhz

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) September 27, 2026

Some residents were appalled. Local Ian Robinson wrote: “950 years of Norman history, medieval warfare, royal decrees and Civil War – all leading up to the moment we thought: ‘You know what this ancient castle really needs? A 150-metre rainbow flag’. Because apparently nine and a half centuries of heritage wasn’t quite colourful enough. Still, at least the tea room survived long enough to witness the decline.”

Roofer Russell Blackaller, who works on listed buildings, pointed out the double standard inside planning law itself. People in Grade II houses, he said, “require formal consent sometimes purely to erect a scaffolding.” Yet a Grade I monument was draped “purely to have a celebration.”

Courtney Soleil put the civic point cleanly: “No one is saying people shouldn’t be free to live as they choose, but not every historic landmark needs to be turned into a statement for the cause of the moment. This is a 950-year-old Norman castle and part of Britain’s shared heritage.” Historic monuments, she argued, should represent that shared history rather than “continually being used to promote one particular cause.”

Christian Concern chief executive Andrea Minichiello Williams told The Telegraph: “The castle may have been captured in history, but today it is the town itself that feels captured – not by an army, but by an ideology that has taken hold of its public spaces and its culture, leaving little room for anyone who dares to disagree.”

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe was no gentler: “It is not ‘homophobic’ to label this as wildly naff and generally vomit-inducing.” He added: “Sensible gay people despise the woke theatre of it all too, and just want to get on with their lives.”

Totnes, Devon. Listen, I’m as gay as the hills, but this is taking the proverbial. It’s an eyesore that the residents have to suffer.

We ought to be venerating our heritage and inheritance, not demanding it bend to modern ideological virtue signalling.

It makes a mockery of us. pic.twitter.com/Jdu6kxzltw

— Darren Grimes (@darrengrimes) September 27, 2026

If it had of been the Union Flag it would have been removed post-haste.

— ron (@RonIGeordie) September 28, 2026

Indeed, in 2016 Totnes council took down a Union Flag because it was deemed “too noisy” when it flapped in the wind. In 2015 a planned permanent rainbow crossing was blocked by Devon County Council on traffic-safety grounds, but the instinct of the activists was already clear: the civic surface of the town is a canvas, except when the paint is red, white and blue.

Most people don’t give a fuck what your sexual orientation is as long as you don’t go near kids. Nowadays this pride stuff is more about “look at me” and attention seeking and trying to promote gayness amongst children which is all very strange.

— Danny Boy (@DannyDoy2022) September 28, 2026

F*ck me the whole month of June isn’t enough for them.

— REJECT DIGITAL ID (@John_Wick888) September 28, 2026

Typical of the left, they throw around the words of diversity and equality, yet meet anyone who disagrees with hate and violence. This goes against the very essence of equality and diversity when so many other feelings are ignored and attacked.

— Testy McTestFace (@TheDrunkTester) September 28, 2026

Flying a British or English flag from that same castle would, of course, be treated as a provocation. Across the country the pattern is no longer subtle. Britain’s biggest council has gone to the High Court seeking an injunction that could put people in prison for two years for attaching Union Flags and St George’s Crosses to highway furniture, while Pakistan, Palestine, Somalia, India and Jamaica flags have been hosted, lit up, or left flying.

English Heritage helped plan this latest rainbow eyesore. A sitting MP turned up to bless it. The keep that survived the Civil War is now a billboard for a faction that talks about invasion as if that were charming.

The national flags of the country that built the place are the ones that get the injunctions, the noise complaints, and the lectures about “community cohesion.”

A doctor in the Netherlands euthanized a toddler in what officials said is the country’s first case involving a child under 12, and a government-appointed review panel concluded the physician acted “with due care.”

The child, who was nearly 2 years old and suffering from severe medical conditions, died at the end of 2025, with details only becoming public this month after the supervising committee issued its finding.

The child was born at 26 weeks, suffered brain damage, and was later diagnosed with spastic cerebral palsy and a severe form of infant epilepsy, according to the report. The child’s parents requested termination of life after the attending physician concluded the child’s suffering was unbearable and without hope of improvement.

Independent doctors first consulted in the case concluded the child was not in continuous unbearable suffering and that reasonable alternatives still existed. Rather than stopping there, the attending physician sought another opinion, and a second doctor signed off. The first consultants said palliative options and different medication might improve control of the child’s epileptic seizures. The official report did not say death was imminent; it said the child’s life expectancy was shortened and depended on potentially life-threatening complications.

Until 2024, Dutch rules covered termination of life for newborns and separate euthanasia requests from minors age 12 and older. A special regulation that took effect in 2024 created a framework for termination of life in children under 12, subject to strict medical-review requirements.

News of the Dutch case comes days after a shocking report from Canada, where an 83-year-old Christian grandmother in Ontario was euthanized under the country’s Medical Assistance in Dying program this summer, and her family said she never gave her final consent.

Brigitte Stegemann died by lethal injection on July 10 at The Pearl, a care home in Cannifton, Ontario, after being diagnosed with Stage IV stomach cancer. Relatives said Stegemann, a devout Christian, had already turned down MAID because it went against her faith, telling them, “No, I don’t want that,” and that her wish was to die naturally.

Stegemann’s granddaughter and longtime caregiver, Brigitte Kranendonk, said the process moved forward anyway and sped up while she was away on vacation.

Meanwhile…

Canada is advertising assisted suicide.

This is absolutely horrific. pic.twitter.com/BwNu8Pax5a

— LifeNews.com (@LifeNewsHQ) September 28, 2026

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

The South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Ukraine’s acting ambassador to the country on Sept. 28 to convey Seoul’s displeasure over Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s revelation that two North Korean prisoners of war had been transferred to South Korea.

South Korean First Vice Minister Park Yun-ju told acting Ukrainian Ambassador Andriy Beshkin that despite a clear agreement to keep the repatriation confidential, Kyiv unilaterally revealed the move during Zelenskyy’s speech to the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) last week, according to South Korean news agency Yonhap.

The ministry further expressed strong regret over the Ukrainian Presidential Press Office’s denial of the existence of the private agreement and has demanded an official explanation and apology from Kyiv, saying such actions seriously undermine trust between the two governments.

The Epoch Times contacted the South Korean and Ukrainian foreign ministries for comment but did not receive responses by publication time.

Zelenskyy revealed that the North Korean prisoners had been transferred to South Korea during his address to the UNGA on Sept. 23.

“Recently, we sent two North Korean prisoners of war to the Republic of Korea,” Zelenskyy said in his address to the United Nations.

“These guys are not easy to capture alive. One of them, when he realized he was going to be taken prisoner, tried to kill himself. And he was shocked that fate didn’t let him die.

“This is how they raise people in the North. It’s reality. They take away their freedom. They take away their right to choose. And they drill into them that they must die, no matter what.”

Since then, South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and his office have alleged that Ukraine breached a nondisclosure agreement between Seoul and Kyiv, designed to keep the transfer secret and protect the soldiers from potential repercussions.

Lee said in an X post the day after Zelenskyy’s remarks to the U.N. that “state affairs should be conducted for the country and the people, not for the interests or popularity of the government or those in power.”

“Of course there were internal arguments for disclosing the fact that the North Korean prisoners had been brought to South Korea, since it would clearly have helped recover the government’s approval ratings,” Lee said, but noted that “considering the various problems that disclosure would create, keeping it confidential was appropriate in every respect, and that is what was agreed.”

He labeled the revelation about the prisoners’ transfer “cruel and irresponsible,” saying that he did not “know what circumstances the Ukrainian side may have had in disclosing this in violation of the confidentiality agreement, but it is deeply regrettable.”

In a later statement from the South Korean Presidential Office on Sept. 27, senior presidential secretary for public relations Seong Ghi-hong also expressed “strong regret” over Zelenskyy’s disclosure of the repatriation and the subsequent denial of any confidentiality agreement, according to Yonhap.

Seong said the Ukrainian government had asked for confidentiality, as the revelation could spark domestic criticism over Kyiv giving up the chance to exchange the North Korean prisoners for Ukrainian prisoners held by Russia.

Seoul agreed to keep the repatriation confidential because of security, diplomatic, and humanitarian concerns, including the safety of the prisoners and their families still in the north, he said.

Ukraine captured the two North Koreans in Russia’s Kursk region in January 2025, with Zelenskyy at the time describing the pair as the first North Korean soldiers to be captured alive since Pyongyang sent troops to fight alongside Moscow’s forces.

Over the past two decades, domestic robots like robot vacuums and lawn-mowing robots have evolved from gimmicks for tech lovers to actual mass-market products.

Today, these automated little helpers are capable of performing household chores as good as, if not better than humans, freeing up valuable time for their owners to focus on more important things such as (paid) work, family or leisure activities.

With advancements in technology, domestic robots have not only become smarter and more efficient, but also become a lot more affordable, with decent vacuum robots now available for just a couple hundred dollars.

As more households embrace smart technologies, the demand for these robots continues to grow, promising a future where mundane chores are handled effortlessly, leaving homeowners (and renters) with more time to enjoy the finer things in life.

As Statista’s Felix Richter reports, according to Statista Consumer Insights, adoption of vacuum and lawn-mowing robots is still limited, though, with fewer than 1 in 5 respondents in each surveyed market calling either of the two their own.

You will find more infographics at Statista

Interestingly, domestic robots are particularly unpopular in South Korea and Japan – two of the countries with the highest density of industrial robots.