Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, said that foreign governments have been bearing the brunt of U.S. tariffs over 15 percent, with China paying the lion’s share. 

“China is paying an average tariff of 52 percent. But the government of China is eating most of it. So while that’s a high average when you count in China, the government of China is covering most of that cost,” Lutnick said on CNBC’s “Squawk on the Street” on Sept. 11.

As Epoch Times notes, Lutnick said that most countries aren’t facing tariffs above 15% and that when they do, the foreign governments step in to keep their businesses afloat while they negotiate better terms.

“The model is clear: 10% tariffs or less are paid by the manufacturers, the distributors, the businesses,” he said. “The consumer doesn’t pay. The consumer doesn’t pay because the seller doesn’t want to raise prices, because if they could, they would, but they don’t want to sell less. So they eat it.”

If the duties are between 10 and 15%, the distributor and manufacturers share the cost at about a 60-40 split, he said, resulting in about a 2 percent price increase with tariffs of 15%.

“And above 15%, no one can handle that … unless the government covers it. So what you saw in cars, when you had 25%, before Europe made their deal and Japan made their deal, the government of South Korea and Japan and Europe covered it, because they didn’t want to hurt their employment,” Lutnick said.

This confirms our own previous reporting, focusing primarily on Japanese auto exports where virtually all these tariff costs have been borne by domestic carmakers.

https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/1940496511978136038?ref_src=twsrc%…

“You’ve got to remember, these are big things, and our president is playing the big hand for America, and some of the governments play the little hand for their countries’ good,” Lutnick said, adding that this is why citizens have not seen price increases as a result of the tariffs.

“Our average tariff rate is not that high. Most of the world is less than 15 percent.”

Lutnick said Trump’s tariff strategy has changed the way other countries meet the United States at the table, pointing to the Japan and EU deals as an example. While Europe has agreed to U.S. car imports with no tariffs, Japan culturally has no market for U.S. cars, Lutnick said. Japan has instead agreed to invest $550 billion in American projects of Trump’s choice during his term in office, effectively to “buy down their tariff” at no cost to its own taxpayers, he said.

“Tariffs are bringing in $40 billion a month, bringing down our deficit,” Lutnick said. “It’s going to grow to $700 billion a year, and with growth of our economy the president says it’s going to get to a trillion.”

He predicted a construction boom in the first quarter of next year, with new factory building worth roughly $10 trillion and gross domestic product growth even before the factories open.

“You’re going to see factories get built in America at a scale you have never seen before,” he said.

Authored by Michael Munger via the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER)

Earth is going to hit “peak population” before the end of this century.

Within 25 years, most of the world’s developed nations will be facing sharp population declines, with shrinking pools of young people working to support an ever-aging population.

The reason is not famine, war, or pestilence. We did this to ourselves, by creating a set of draconian solutions to a problem that didn’t even exist.

Fear has always been the best tool for social control, and the fear of humanity was deployed by generations of “thinkers” on the control-obsessed left.

Most starkly, Paul Ehrlich made a remarkably frightening, and entirely false, prediction in 1968, in his book “Population Bomb”:

“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines—hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate …

“We may be able to keep famine from sweeping across India for a few more years. But India can’t possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980. Nothing can prevent the death of tens of millions of people in India in the 1970s …

“And England? If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

PJ O’Rourke explained what was going on, in his 1994 book “All the Trouble in the World”:

“The bullying of citizens by means of dreads and fights has been going on since paleolithic times. Greenpeace fundraisers on the subject of global warming are not much different than the tribal Wizards on the subject of lunar eclipses. ‘Oh no, Night Wolf is eating the Moon Virgin. Give me silver and I will make him spit her out.”

Family Planning and State Intervention

But there is more going here than just gulling the gullible; the overpopulation hysteria of the 1960s and 1970s had world-changing consequences, effects that are just now becoming clear. It’s not fair (though it is fun) to blame Ehrlich; the truth is that the full-blown family-size freakout emerged from a pseudo-science that held growth was a threat to prosperity. Influential organizations were founded by very worried people. The Population Council and the International Planned Parenthood Federation were both created early on, in 1952. Developing nations began promoting aggressive family planning initiatives, often with substantial support, and sometimes with coercive pressures, from Western governments and international agencies.

The United Nations, the World Bank, and bilateral donors, particularly the United States through USAID, increasingly integrated population control into foreign aid programs. High fertility rates, particularly in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, were viewed not merely as demographic trends but as Malthusian obstacles to modernization, poverty alleviation, and global security. China implemented its infamous “One-Child Policy” in 1979 with coercive measures, including forced sterilizations and abortions. India conducted mass sterilization campaigns, particularly during the Emergency period (1975–1977), often using force or extreme social pressure, including withholding ration cards. A number of countries in East Asia saw aggressive state-controlled programs, often funded by the World Bank, that sought to use questionable and coercive methods to reduce population growth quickly and permanently.

In more than a few cases, of course, the availability of contraception was actually a means of freeing women to make a choice to have fewer children. But combining this choice with state-sponsored coercion meant that even those who wanted more children, or would have wanted more children if the social pressures had been more sensibly used, were diverted from their private dream of several children.

That would be bad enough, if that were the end of the story. But it is only the beginning, because the sanctimony of scientism has created an actual population crisis, one that will affect the world for decades. Some nations may never recover, at least not in their present form. That crisis is the population bust.

Shrinking Planet: Which Nations Will Peak When?

I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations, using available data. What I was trying to calculate was the year of projected peak population, for the 26 countries where the data are reliable enough to make an educated guess. That projection is based on Total Fertility Rates, and accounting for immigration, and mortality (life expectancy) trends. These estimates are, at best, approximations, because in some cases the data are not strictly comparable. But the data I do have are drawn from the United Nations World Population Prospects, OECD statistical reports, and national demographic data.

See endnote for more source information.

Peak population years are based on UN World Population Prospects (PDF) mid‑variant projections, supported by regional reports noting that most European/North American nations will peak in the late 2030s. Japan already peaked around 2008, South Korea around 2025, and Israel—with TFR near 3.0—may not peak this century.

As is noted in the final row of the table, the replacement rate for total fertility is about 2.10, given trends in life expectancy and assuming no net migration.

This raises a question: if all these countries have TFRs below replacement, what is actually happening to the world’s population? The answer is simple, though it has not been talked about much. The world population is going to peak, and then start to decline. The total number of people on Earth will begin to fall sometime in the near future. The actual date of the peak is a matter of conjecture, since it depends on specific assumptions, but the estimates appear mostly to fall between 2060 (assuming current TFRs are constant) and 2080 (if TFRs increase slightly, and life span increases):

Sources: United Nations Medium-Fertility Projection (orange line); Simplified Lancet Projection Population Scenario yellow line

None of this needed to happen, folks. There is plenty of room on Earth, as you know if you have ever flown across Australia, Canada, or for that matter the US, at night. There is a lot of empty space.

Let’s do a thought experiment: there are 8.1 billion people on Earth now. Suppose all of them lived in the US state of Texas (for those Texans reading this, I know it seems like we are moving in that direction; the traffic in Dallas is remarkable!). Texas has an area of 676,600 square kilometers. So supposing present trends continue, and literally the whole world did move to Texas; what would that look like?

Well, 8.1billion / 676,600 is about 12,000 people per square kilometer. That’s slightly more dense than the five boroughs of New York (about 11,300 per square kilometer), but much less than Paris (20,000), and dramatically less than Manila (nearly 44,000). Now, New York and Paris are pretty crowded, but people do live there, and even go there voluntarily to visit sometimes. Even if the entire current global population had to move into Texas, it’d be only marginally more annoying than Manhattan at rush hour.

So, here’s the takeaway: there was no good reason for the population hysteria of past decades. As I tried to argue in an earlier piece, those predictions were ridiculous even at the time. And we need not be concerned about reviving the “population bomb,” because there is plenty of room, even if the human population does start to grow again, and even if we all had to move to Texas.

The effects of population decline are already starting to be felt in countries such as South Korea and Japan. As the average age climbs, the absolute number of people under 40 starts to decline. Unless something changes, the world population in general, and many specific countries, will face circumstances that, until now, have only ever been observed during catastrophic plagues or savage wars: blocks of empty houses, abandoned cities, and hordes of elderly people who lack the ability to provide for themselves. The difference in the present case, however, is that we are not suffering from famine or war. As Antony Davis pointed out, the current collapse of world civilization is a consequence of a striking failure to recognize that human beings are the most valuable resource we have.

*  *  *

Some Notes on Sources

• TFR data comes from OECD and UN: OECD average TFR was 5 in 2022

• OECD Social Indicators 2024

• The Real Reason People Aren’t Having Kids, The Atlantic

• Fertility Rate, Total for OECD Members, St. Louis Federal Reserve

• List of countries by past fertility rate, Wikipedia.org

• Country‑specific TFRs drawn mostly from UN/EU data such as: Total fertility rate, Wikipedia.org

• Charted: When Every Continent’s Population Will Peak This Centurycom, VisualCapitalist.com

• More countries, including China, are grappling with shrinking and aging populations, The Atlantic

• Denmark’s TFR (1.55 in 2022) is from its national statistics

• Korea’s extremely low TFR (0.7 in 2023) is from OECD press releases

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass endorsed former mayor Antonio Villaraigosa for governor of California on Sept. 9.

The 72-year-old Los Angeles native and former state assemblyman is making a second run for the state’s highest seat.

He lost in the 2018 primary against 26 other candidates. Gov. Gavin Newsom won in the general election.

As Jill McLaughlin reports for The Epoch Times, Bass introduced Villaraigosa at a press conference, calling him California’s next governor.

“You are talking about somebody who knows the Legislature, who knows how to build relationships, who knows our city,” Bass said.

Villaraigosa, a Democrat, said he was honored by the endorsement.

“I’m honored to have the endorsement of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass,” Villaraigosa stated on social media.

“Mayor Bass is a fierce advocate for working families, children, seniors, and underserved communities and a tireless champion for social and economic justice and for the people of Los Angeles.

“I appreciate her support in this campaign and look forward to collaborating with Mayor Bass for the health, safety, and betterment of Angelenos and all Californians,” he added.

During the press conference, he criticized the recent immigration enforcement in the city and federal immigration officers working to identify and deport illegal immigrants.

He vowed to continue fighting against the Trump administration’s immigration operations.

“In my lifetime, I have never seen military-style raids in this town, or any town in the United States of America. … I say no. I say no to this threat to our democracy,” Villaraigosa said Sept. 9.

The two have been friends since the 1970s, when Bass was a community activist and Villaraigosa was a union organizer.

Both of them served in the Legislature, becoming Assembly speakers, and both were elected as mayor of Los Angeles.

Villaraigosa, the city’s first Latino mayor, describes himself as a problem solver and civil rights leader.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass speaks to journalists in a press conference in Los Angeles, on Jan. 17, 2025. Bass endorsed her friend and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Sept. 6 in the state’s governor’s race. Apu Gomes/Getty Images

One of the latest polls published in August showed the former mayor with only about 9 percent support among possible voters.

Former Congresswoman Katie Porter, a Democrat, has a solid lead in the race, followed by Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican.

Former Fox News host Steve Hilton, also a Republican, was in third place, according to the Politico poll.

In June, an Emerson College poll showed Villaraigosa was favored by 5 percent of voters.

The former mayor was a visiting fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics after serving as Los Angeles mayor from 2005 to 2013. He launched his campaign to replace termed-out Gov. Gavin Newsom in July 2024.

The Democratic Party stalwart faces similar competition this time around with a field of contenders vying for the seat.

At least 20 candidates had entered the gubernatorial race as of Sept. 10, with several big names among them.

Besides Bianco, Hilton, and Porter, candidates for governor include former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, who was appointed by President Joe Biden to oversee the COVID-19 vaccine mandates, current California State Schools Superintendent Tony Thurmond, former state senator Toni Atkins, and tech entrepreneur Ethan Agarwal.

Former vice president and California resident Kamala Harris announced she would not run for the office.

Term-limited Newsom has not yet endorsed anyone for the race.

The Trump administration asked an appeals court on Thursday to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors by Monday, before the central bank’s next vote on interest rates. The request is the latest effort by the White House to stack the board before the Fed’s next interest-rate decision next Tuesday and Wednesday. At the same time, Senate Republicans are pushing to confirm Stephen Miran, President Donald Trump’s nominee to an open spot on the Fed’s board, which could happen as soon as Monday.

Trump sought to fire Cook Aug. 25, but a federal judge, who is also a member of Cook’s black sorority, ruled late Tuesday that the removal was illegal and reinstated her to the Fed’s board.

Trump has accused Cook of mortgage fraud because she has claimed two properties as “primary residences” in July 2021, before she joined the board. Such claims can lead to a lower mortgage rate and smaller down payment than if one of them was declared as a rental property or second home. Cook has denied the charges and stated that it was a clerical error.

On Tuesday, District Court Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the administration had not satisfied a legal requirement that Fed governors can only be fired “for cause,” which she said was limited to misconduct while in office. Cook did not join the Fed’s board until 2022.

In their emergency appeal, Trump’s lawyers argued that even if the conduct occurred before her time as governor, her alleged action “indisputably calls into question Cook’s trustworthiness and whether she can be a responsible steward of the interest rates and economy.”

The administration asked an appeals court to issue an emergency decision reversing the lower court by Monday. If their appeal is successful, Cook would be removed from the Fed’s board until her case is ultimately resolved in the courts, and she would miss next week’s meeting.

If the appeals court rules in Cook’s favor, the administration will seek an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court.

Either way, the Fed is expected to cut its benchmark interest rate next week by a quarter-point to about 4.1%. It would be ironic if Cook, who will  most likely be present during next week’s meeting and is a prominent dove, vote for no rate cut (or, even funnier, a hike) when she herself would do everything in her power to lower her own personal debt interest rates. 

Meanwhile, should Miran, a top economic adviser to Trump, win approval in time to join the Fed next week, he could push for a steeper half-point reduction to the Fed’s rate.

That said, there are 12 officials who vote on whether and by how much to cut, including the seven members of the Fed’s board as well as five of the Fed’s 12 regional bank presidents, who vote on a rotating basis.

Trump’s two other appointees to the Fed – Christopher Waller and Michelle Bowman – might also support a half-point cut, but several of the Fed’s bank presidents have expressed concern about stubbornly elevated inflation and would almost certainly oppose such a large reduction.

If the Fed approves a quarter-point cut, it is possible there could be dissenting votes both from officials who preferred no cut and from those who support a half-point.

A federal judge on Sept. 10 ordered four federal agencies to stop banning illegal immigrants from programs such as Head Start, which provides child care for poorer families.

U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy said the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Labor must halt, at least for now, efforts to remove illegal immigrants from the programs.

HHS and other agencies said in July they were reinterpreting a federal law called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which states that illegal immigrants cannot obtain “federal public benefits.”

Under previous interpretations, people accessing certain programs that lawmakers intended only for Americans and legal immigrants did not need to provide proof of legal status, officials said.

As Zachary Stieber reports for The Epoch Times, twenty attorneys general sued, alleging the new interpretation wrongly applied to programs that fell outside the act. In a motion for a preliminary injunction, or a block while the case proceeds, they also said that the government failed to provide “fair notice” to states of the change.

McElroy sided with the states, writing on Wednesday that “while reasonable policymakers can debate the merits of restricting access to programs to lawful citizens—and it is surely not this Court’s job to wade into that debate—the Agencies offer at best incomplete answers to serious questions.”

That appears to violate the Administrative Procedure Act, which lets judges block agency actions determined to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” she said.

McElroy also pointed to the change in interpretation from decades of precedent.

“The Government argues that it has somehow interpreted this statute incorrectly for the nearly thirty years that it has been the law,” she said.

“In its view, everyone (from every past administration) has misunderstood it from the start—at least until last month, when the right way to read it became clear to the Government. The Court is skeptical of that.”

The four agencies, which had pointed to an order from President Donald Trump that directed officials to make sure that taxpayer-funded benefits are not going to illegal immigrants, did not respond to requests for comment.

New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat and one of the attorneys general who sued over the change, said in a statement that “with this victory, we are protecting children’s education, safeguarding critical health care, and preserving the safety net that keeps families afloat.”

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida has an absolutely thrilling idea, one I never imagined I would see unfold in my lifetime. He is putting on the ballot next year a referendum that would abolish or restrict local governments from taxing owner-occupied homes.

That’s right, he wants to get rid of the property tax, saving residents some $3,400 a year and fundamentally disrupting the way schools and local governments are financed.

Texas is considering the same path.

If this really happens, I can easily predict more of a demographic shift out of the Northeast and Northwest to the South and Texas. If this spreads to more states, it would amount to a revolution in public finance.

It’s long overdue. These tax schemes are brutal on home ownership. Indeed, it’s hard to say that you are ever really the owner of your home if you are having to pay rent to the government every year.

It’s especially a problem in an environment when the home valuation goes up every year and so does the tax you owe on the place. You have done nothing but lived there and enjoyed life. It is entirely paid off. Meanwhile, the government keeps coming after you with ever more pressing demands for money.

You cannot really say you are an owner of anything under these conditions. Of course when I hear about how this will save $3,400 on average in Florida, I nearly faint. In my area of the country, this would be pennies. Property taxes in New England can be $20K–40K and that is not unusual.

These taxes fund schools that people don’t use. That’s how public schooling in this country came to be financed. The system of school districts really is a system of tax districts. That’s why they are so heavily enforced. Live on this side of the street instead of that one and your taxes can be completely different. It’s all to fund the public schools, whether you use them or not.

Friends of mine are paying $30K in property taxes plus $70K per kid for private schools for three kids.

If that kind of expenditure shocks and amazes you, you are not alone. I find it all unfathomable but that’s how New England works.

It’s a different world in Texas and Florida. Here you have new experiments in school choice. The plans are different but they generally let the parent use the money that would otherwise go to the public school for private schools, charter schools, or homeschools, either in the form of direct payments or deductions from the tax bill overall.

We might ask how all of this is happening now. The answer traces to the school closures of 2020 and 2021 which dramatically reduced confidence in the public schooling system and hence the way they are financed. If millions of people are homeschooling and millions more are attending newly established private schools, the political pressure for ever-higher property taxes is thereby reduced.

It is not thus an accident that we are seeing these dramatic changes being proposed in how schools are financed given that the public schools that rely on income taxes are being depleted of students and teachers. Schools are closing all over the country all the time. With ever fewer schools to finance, it makes perfect sense that people would start asking profound questions about the property tax system too.

There is an additional factor. Public schools in all countries depend on a degree of population consensus on basics like language, norms, demographics, and notions about goals and methods. What parents discovered in lockdowns is that this did not exist. They were feeding their children to a system that teaches in a way contrary to their own homelife and sometimes even endangering their children with creepy views on gender and sexuality.

This was really a turning point. Once public doubts rose to a tipping point, the consensus collapsed and so did the willingness to continue paying for them.

In Northern states, it will be a long time for such reforms to arrive. Many cities are stuck in a Catch-22 situation. Their property taxes are too high to attract residents. At the same time, their underperforming schools are voracious in their consumption of tax dollars. It is not likely that the schools will get better with less revenue so that leaves cities with a huge problem. They have no way to attract residents and business investment, so they keep threading the needle to preserve the status quo, as bad as it is.

That’s why the only real path for reform for these Northern cities is a dramatic deregulation of schooling itself. There needs to be more innovation to draw people out of public schools into homeschools, charter schools, and private schools. With this, there needs to be an elimination of all vaccine mandates such as they are also doing in Florida. That way states like Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York can become centers of educational freedom.

This change would allow them to start experimenting with lower taxes to attract residents and capital. Maybe at some point, governors can consider what DeSantis is doing, proposing to abolish property taxes entirely. Yes, that would increase home values but it would also untie home valuations from school districts. That would be a dramatically different way of financing local government but something needs to change. They cannot be stuck in this fiscal trap forever.

That aside, if this proposition goes through in Florida, there would be ever more reason for people to move and live in this great state. And it would serve as a model of other states. It would imply huge changes in educational funding and also in the general trajectory of public finance in this country.

A healthy state and local economy should not have to depend on property taxes. They are always and everywhere unAmerican. In America, people are supposed to be able to own things outright, as in “This is my house.” So long as government is dinging you every year with ever higher charges, you simply cannot say that.

Taxation is ultimately the use of force. If you don’t pay, government can take what is yours and can convict you of a crime. For that reason, taxation should only be used when there is no other option and the thing it funds cannot be otherwise provided through market means. This is also a compassionate strategy for public management. Knowing the difference between mine and thine is a foundational principle of civilization. In that way, DeSantis is proposing to make his state a much more civilized place to live and invest.

Authored by Loren Kalish via American Greatness,

Democrats are not only the party of enmity but also the enemies of liberty and justice for all. Enmity consumes the Democrat Party, based not on hostility to certain ideas but hatred of certain individuals, chief among them President Trump and his friends and advisers. Among the latter is Peter Navarro, the president’s trade adviser, whose new book, I Went to Prison So You Won’t Have To, details Democrats’ efforts to criminalize politics. Navarro writes from experience and about his experiences as a political prisoner, enjoining us to defend the Constitution.

The book is also a reminder of the precariousness of personal liberty and of the vigilance necessary to sustain it, lest we be the targets of malicious prosecution.

As Navarro shows, malice begets injustice and threatens to destroy our system of self-government.

At stake is the doctrine of separation of powers as outlined in the Constitution. Upon this doctrine rest the respective rights of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government.

Because of this doctrine, executive privilege is a reality; without this doctrine, testimonial immunity—the right of a presidential adviser to refuse to abet a congressional witch hunt—is meaningless, which is why Navarro went to prison.

“If I lose, future presidential advisers of either party could face jail for honoring executive privilege and defending the Constitution’s separation of powers,” Navarro said in a statement.

In this scenario, the investigative state grows stronger while the presidency becomes weaker.

The result is an unlawful transfer of power from the White House to Congress.

Abuse of power is also inevitable, what with bureaucrats and hacks in charge of the prison system.

The summary raids, the truncated religious services, the food mixups, the commissary markups, the interminable counts, the brokenness of the facilities themselves—the indignities are manifold.

Despiriting though things are, Navarro does not waver; his spirit, like his faith in the Constitution, is total. He shows his faith by his works, inspiring us to do likewise.

Navarro’s book is itself a work of courage, free of score-settling or recrimination. The emphasis is on fairness, on the balance necessary to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty.

The words summon us to end lawfare, so executive privilege can endure and testimonial immunity can survive. The words give new meaning to the principle of limited government.

I Want to Prison So You Won’t Have To—the words speak to our innate sense of decency. Because we believe in the dignity of the individual, we loathe all forms of tyranny. We loathe the pettiness of zealots and the capriciousness of ideologues. More importantly, we loathe any attempt to silence dissent. We loathe the anti-democratic actions of those who would bankrupt or imprison us.

Thanks to Peter Navarro, we can learn from his example. Thanks to his book, we can restore the Constitution and save our country. We can do this—and more. And so we shall.

Nearly two weeks ago the House Oversight Committee released a trove of emails related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Today Bloomberg revealed they have obtained over 18,000 more – and dedicated a fleet of journalists to sift through them – with what we imagine was an effort to find dirt on President Donald Trump. 

And while mentions of Trump are scant, the emails reveal a vast network of gifts spanning Epstein victims, recruiters, and associates. 

Trump Stuff

Donald Trump is mentioned a few times in the cache; he appears alongside Epstein and Maxwell at Mar-a-Lago in 2000, and in a 2003 New York Magazine–described dinner Maxwell arranged at Epstein’s townhouse with “barely clad models”; in a Sept. 14, 2006 email in which Maxwell sends Epstein a 51-name VIP list that includes Trump – to which Epstein replies “Remove trump,” with the list’s purpose unclear. On Aug. 23, 2007 Maxwell writes to Epstein that reporters likely “went to donald trump” as the Epstein investigation into his sex crimes intensified.

And there’s one message recounting Trump and Epstein’s real-estate rivalry over Abe Gosman’s former mansion (which Trump ultimately bought). 

The correspondence, most active from 2005 to 2008, includes a 2007 accountant’s spreadsheet itemizing nearly 2,000 gifts, purchases and payments totaling about $1.8 million. Many entries bear Maxwell’s initials, “GM,” indicating she helped arrange them. The records log intended recipients ranging from political aides and financiers to assistants and women who later identified as victims. The spreadsheet does not confirm whether gifts were actually delivered or accepted.

The emails also show Maxwell’s role was broader than she has publicly claimed.

She appears as a named director of one of Epstein’s revenue-generating companies, opened at least one foreign bank account using his address, and traded stock in a company in which they were both investors. The cache of documents also reveal two fertility procedures the pair discussed and timed in 2006 and again in 2007 – years after Maxwell has said her involvement “lessened considerably.”

Just days after the raid, Maxwell sent Epstein detailed instructions on a sperm donation for a shared fertility treatment. “You can do the sample at home,” she directed, before adding that it “has to be within 90 mins of my procedure” and that “all the ejaculate must be collected.” -Bloomberg

Gift Network

Clinton orbit / political fixers

• Doug Band (former Bill Clinton aide): Maxwell and Epstein discussed buying him a $35,000 Audemars Piguet and how to present the note (“from you, from me, from us?” → “us”). Spreadsheet logs a $35,000 watch for “DB.”

• Bill & Hillary Clinton circle: Emails reference three meetings Maxwell had with “Clinton” (2006–2008) and show Maxwell promoting TerraMar through CGI; Band also hit Maxwell for a last-minute flight ask (he declined the free flight).

Core financier / client network

• Leslie Wexner: Multiple ATV purchases totaling >$130,000 listed as gifts for Wexner; spreadsheet also shows Victoria’s Secret gifts to women (including a victim).

• Tom Barrack (real-estate investor): Spreadsheet itemizes an ~$11,000 Rolex for Barrack (Barrack’s rep denies he ever received a gift).

Legal team / influence defense

• Alan Dershowitz: $71,000 Lexus of Watertown (MA) purchase—Dershowitz says it was part of legal fees and for his wife, who drove Epstein on visits.

• Draft “letter to friends” (appearing over Dershowitz’s name) for distribution to their social network to discredit allegations—Maxwell tasked with organizing dissemination. (Dershowitz says he doesn’t recall it.)

Tech / science / VIP hospitality

• Sergey Brin & Anne Wojcicki: Maxwell encourages Epstein to host them on Little St. James for New Year’s 2006/07; Epstein later emails he’s on the island with Brin.

• Bill Richardson (then NM governor): His office asked Maxwell whether Epstein’s jet could be used for a Sudan peace mission (Epstein replied “have him call me today!!”). (Richardson used another donor’s plane per prior reporting.)

Assistants / recruiters (many later described as victims)

• Nadia Marcinkova: Repeatedly appears; Epstein’s emails exhibit control/ sexual coercion dynamics. Gifts/expenses for assistants show up in the ledger.

• Natalya “Natasha” Malyshev: Emailed Epstein names, ages, photos; forwarded a pitch that a 19-year-old could “be rewarded” for recruiting classmates.

Victims & family—pattern of “gifts” used for control

• Carolyn Andriano (testified at Maxwell’s trial): Victoria’s Secret gift entry Jan. 6, 2003 (she’d just turned 16).

• Johanna Sjoberg’s father: $10,000 entry (source notes this fit a broader pattern of manipulation).

• Unnamed victim: >80 entries totaling just over $75,000 for things like study abroad, Thai massage lessons, laptop, wires; “GM” initials appear beside many entries (Maxwell involvement).

Other earmarks in the ledger (illustrated in the timeline graphic)

$47,846 Steinway piano (recipient not named).

$10,000 Christmas earrings; $3,328 laptops (victims/assistants); $3,725 study-abroad check; $93,115 ATVs; $1,200 Thai massage class; “Massage for Dummies” books; $496 lingerie shop gift card; $35,000 Audemars Piguet (also annotated above). (Ledger notes don’t prove delivery/acceptance; they log intent and internal accounting.)

Recruiting Operation

The emails and an internal ledger outline a recruiting system that began with “massages” and matured into a routinized pipeline run by Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein’s female associates. Palm Beach police described the entry point: teenage girls were brought to Epstein’s house, paid $200–$1,000, told to undress, and asked to perform sex acts. In the inbox and the ledger, Maxwell is not a bystander -her initials “GM” appear on hundreds of entries, and memos such as “JE gifts girls” mark purchases tied to outreach and retention.

Sourcing & screening: Maxwell and selected associates identified prospects through social circles and schools. Emails from Natalya (“Natasha”) Malyshev to Epstein carried first names, ages and photos; one message proposed a 19-year-old who could “be rewarded” for recruiting classmates. Epstein responded that she was “too big,” adding instructions (“no nail polish”) if a meeting went ahead.

Front-end recruitment via “assistant” roles: Victims describe being drawn in as helpers before sex was introduced. Johanna Sjoberg said Maxwell recruited her as an “assistant,” which she learned meant sex with Epstein; the ledger records $10,000 to her father, consistent with a broader pattern of leverage over families.

Grooming & control mechanics: The spending file shows a cadence of small, frequent items – lingerie, “Massage for Dummies” books, classes, rent, electronics – that reinforced dependence. Examples include a $496 gift card at a New York lingerie shop for two assistants, $1,200 for a Thai-massage course, $3,328 for laptops to two young women listed as assistants/victims, a $3,725 study-abroad check, and multiple Western Union wires.

Managing Fallout – and a Return to the Spotlight

The emails show Maxwell remained deeply involved as the Florida probe escalated. In July 2006, after the FBI contacted one of Epstein’s pilots, Maxwell asked Epstein what to tell him; Epstein directed the pilot to call his lawyer. In August 2007, as federal negotiations intensified, Epstein kept Maxwell apprised: “did not go well ..2 years.” He signed a non-prosecution agreement on Sept. 24, 2007, and Maxwell wrote the same day: “I’m sad scared and depressed ..I can’t shake it.”

*  *  *

We used to dread covering the monthly update of US government income and spending because, without fail, it would show that the USS Titanic was getting that much closer to the inevitable iceberg crash. A few months ago, there was a glimmer of hope when thanks to Elon Musk and DOGE, there was a brief push to cut government spending, while at the same time the US also found a new revenue stream in the form of tariffs which helped reduce the massive monthly US deficit by a modest amount. Alas, in the grand scheme of things, the modest trim in spending and the bounce in revenue proved to be too little… and too late. 

With that in mind, here is a look at the latest Treasury Income Statement for the month of August, published earlier today. 

First, the good news: for the fifth month in a row, the US government benefited from outsized tariff revenues, which as shown in the chart below, continue to rise and in August hit just under $30BN – or about $360BN annualized – at the current tariff rate. 

But while the tariff revenue in June was sufficient to tip the overall US Treasury budget into a (very rare) surplus, July proved to be too great an obstacle as we discussed last month. And August was just a full-blown return to the disastrous drunken-sailor spending ways of old. 

According to the latest Monthly Treasury Statement, in August the US government spent $689 billion, up 0.4% from the $686.6 billion a year ago, and the highest monthly spending total of fiscal 2025 which ends next month. So much for the cost-cutting efforts of DOGE.

And while the huge monthly spending was somewhat offset by a 12.3% increase in revenues, which increased from $306.5 billion to $344.3 billion, this included the $29.5 billion in tariff revenues noted above. Take that out and government income would have been flat YoY. 

Combining the latest receipts and spending data, and we get an August deficit of $345 billion, a substantial deterioration from the $291 billion deficit in July, and the highest monthly deficit of calendar 2025. It was also the second worst August deficit in US history, with just last year’s pre-election blowout of $380 billion higher, which as readers will recall, was a kitchen sink month for the Biden admin, which flooded the economy in a last-ditch effort of boosting the economy ahead of the presidential elections.

Looking at the deficit on a cumulative basis, we find that after June’s improvement, the deficit took another lunge in the past two months, and in August – just one months before the fiscal year end – it hit $1.974 trillion, up 4% from the $1.897 trillion a year ago. That means that with just one month to go, 2025 is shaping up as the third worst year in US history for the budget deficit, with just the covid years 2020 and 2021, worse.

Last but not least, the epic disaster that is US gross interest spending continues to rise, and in August the US spent $111.5 billion on interest, pushing the total for the eleven months of the fiscal year to a record $1,124 trillion, and on pace to surpass $1.2 trillion for the full year. 

With total debt rising by about $1 trillion every 100 days, it means that interest will keep growing too, and unless revenue grows in line, we will reach a point where every taxed dollar goes to pay down US debt. As of today, interest expense eats up just over 23% of all government tax revenues, just shy of the non-wartime record high.

It also means that, as we first showed over a year ago, gross interest remains the second highest spending category for the US, well above defense, income security and health spending, and only Social Security remains a larger outlay category (although it is unclear for how much longer). 

Bottom line: after a brief period of irrational hope in early 2025 when Musk’s obsession with DOGE and cutting spending, we are again at square zero one and back on the fast-track to the debt-death of the United States. No wonder why in his most recent public commentary, Musk fully agrees with us: the government is unfixable.

🚨ELON MUSK: “I haven’t been to DC since May. The government is basically unfixable. I applaud David (Sacks’) noble efforts…but at the end of the day if you look at our national debt…if AI and robots don’t solve our national debt, we’re toast.” pic.twitter.com/XKSes4fBfq

— Autism Capital 🧩 (@AutismCapital) September 10, 2025

Authored by Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox via RealClearInvestigations,

This is the first in a two-part series of the Great Dispersion of Americans across the country.

For much of the past century, in both the United States and elsewhere, the inexorable trend has been for people to move from rural areas and towns to ever larger cities, particularly those with vibrant downtown cores such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and dozens of other iconic American cities. Most visions of the future still view urban cores as the uncontested centers of production, consumption, and culture, with rural areas, small cities, and suburbs relegated to the backwaters of modernity.

A RealClearInvestigations analysis has found that we may be on the cusp of a new era. Urban cores have started to shrink, losing first to the suburbs, then to ever further exurbs, and now to small towns and even rural areas. For the first time since the 19th century, America’s growth pattern favors smaller metros – Fargo, North Dakota, as opposed to Portland, Oregon – many of which once seemed out of favor.

This transformation can be hard to detect because demographers often discuss metropolitan regions, which put city centers at their cores. But this method of classification masks the trend that much of the growth is at the edges of these areas. In virtually all the fastest-growing metros, it has been the further-out exurbs, themselves until recently rural areas, that have experienced most of the expansion. While Raleigh, North Carolina – a sleepy state capital for much of its history – continues to draw migrants from across the country, the most explosive growth is not occurring in the city center but the surrounding “countrypolitan” towns of Apex, Fuquay-Varina, and Zebulon that offer land and a relaxed rural environment along with access to modern amenities.

Between 2010 and 2020, the suburbs and exurbs of the major metropolitan areas gained 2 million net domestic migrants, while the urban core counties lost 2.7 million. The pandemic, which normalized remote work and encouraged people to keep their distance, turbocharged this movement to smaller, less crowded, less expensive housing markets. Through the first four years of this decade, the urban core counties of the major metropolitan areas (over 1,000,000 population) lost 3,259,000 net domestic migrants, three times the rate of loss in the last decade. In contrast, 2.3 million net domestic migrants moved outside the major metros.

This is a shift the media has underplayed or pinned almost entirely on the pandemic, leaving the impression that small towns and rural areas have little to offer other than a safe haven from illness and crime. In a pre-pandemic 2018 article asking “Can rural America be saved?” the New York Times reported that small cities and towns, particularly in the middle of the country, were “getting old” and facing “relentless economic decline.”

The data suggest the opposite: that Americans are heading back to the land. The steep costs of urban housing and an Amazon economy that allows anybody, anywhere to get almost anything, is rekindling our deep-seated desire for privacy, space, and home ownership. 

The New Demographics

The first phase of geographic reinvention began to take shape by 2000, as workers followed both U.S.- and foreign-based companies, which were increasingly expanding into lower-cost states in the Sun Belt and Midwest. Since then, the two most urbanized big states, California and New York, have each lost more than 4 million net domestic migrants. Two other trends – a drop in immigration and fertility rates, especially among people living in big cities – are making it hard for these states to restock their urban populations. 

Although the many efforts to revive downtowns have helped lure newcomers, at least temporarily, most people moved to the periphery; suburbs account for about 90% of all U.S. metropolitan growth between 2010 and 2020, with the greatest increase in the farther-flung exurbs. The most notable expansion is not occurring on the fringes of behemoths like New York City and Chicago but in and around smaller metro areas. Between 2015 and 2023, areas whose growth more than doubled the national population increase included the Texas cities of Killeen and Sherman; Savannah and Jefferson in Georgia; Spartanburg, South Carolina; Daphne, Alabama; Naples, Florida; Sioux Falls, South Dakota; Hagerstown, Maryland; and Clarksville, Tennessee. In these last three – Sioux Falls, Hagerstown, and Clarksville – the new settlements actually spill over into neighboring (and even more rural) states. 

This process may only be in its early phase, driven by the rush of millennials as well as immigrants. In the past, notes urban analyst and midwestern native Aaron Renn, much of the urban growth in the Midwest has come from migration from smaller towns in their region instead of from the coasts. The demographic vitality of places like Indianapolis and Columbus, for example, has been primarily from surrounding metro areas and rural regions. 

This is now changing as both foreign and domestic pilgrims are increasingly attracted to these smaller towns. We are witnessing a world turning upside down from the realities of the last century. Even the greatest exemplar of 20th-century growth – Los Angeles County – is now shrinking, and according to state estimates, will lose an additional 1 million people by 2070. Meanwhile, many smaller areas, notably in the South and Midwest, from which many Angelinos (and their parents) originally came, are enjoying something of a demographic recovery.

Housing Costs Driving the Big Metro Exodus

This shift reflects, more than anything, the rising cost of housing, which accounts for about 88% of the difference in the cost of living between expensive big city areas and the national average. As RCI previously reported, much of this extra cost results from the strict peripheral land regulations that have driven prices up in many metropolitan areas. High housing prices initially helped drive migrants from California to places like Oregon, Washington, and Colorado. But now those states have begun to adopt the same regulatory schemes with the same result: lower job growth, sluggish housing-construction rates, a deteriorating business climate, and surging domestic outmigration. This is a principal factor in the declining homeownership rates and domestic outmigration afflicting big cities. 

While the shift to smaller metros has many sources – including the migration of older Americans looking for less expensive places to live and the return to the South by many African Americans – perhaps more critical has been the movement of young families. The key here is home ownership, the traditional way to build wealth and enter the middle class. It has been in decline, not in terms of desire but the chance of achieving it, for half a century.  

Since the pandemic, U.S. house prices have risen strongly, seriously eroding affordability. In a market defined as affordable, the “median multiple” (which divides the median price of a house by the median income) registers at 3 or less. Right now, the average for the entire United States is over 4, but much higher in some markets – 10 or more in San Jose, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego, and 7 or more in San Diego, Miami, New York, and Seattle.

Not surprisingly, housing is usually more affordable in smaller markets and rural areas. American Community Survey data indicate that there are about 120 metropolitan areas in the United States with median multiples of 3.0 or less. In 2024, many of the more affordable metro areas could be found in former industrial centers such as Pittsburgh (3.2), Cleveland (3.3), St. Louis (3.5), and Rochester (3.6). The best bargains for first-time homebuyers, according to Zillow, are in smaller markets, where median multiples were 3.0 or below, such as in Wausau, Wisconsin; Cumberland, Maryland; Terre Haute, Indiana; and Bloomington, Illinois. 

This development has helped spur significant gains in net domestic migration in states like Alabama, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. All of these states have a lower cost of living than the national average, except for New Hampshire, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Broad Rise of Smaller Places

The shift from the most urbanized regions and states has also been fueled by job growth. It has shifted decisively in recent years to less urban and lower-density states such as Idaho, Utah, Texas, the Carolinas, and Montana. In contrast, big urban states like New York, California, Illinois, and Massachusetts sit toward the bottom. This pattern also applies to smaller metros like Fayetteville, Arkansas; Greenville, South Carolina; Grand Forks, North Dakota; and Ogden, Utah, where job growth soared most dramatically.

At the same time, some formerly booming metro areas like Seattle, Denver, and Portland have experienced reduced net domestic migration as prices have risen and economic opportunities have shifted. Domestic migrants are increasingly turning to smaller metropolitan areas. In each of these once “hot” metros, domestic migration has switched to smaller markets, such as Spokane, Centralia, and Shelton in Washington, and Greeley and Grand Junction in Colorado, according to our analysis of Census Bureau data. 

This represents a reversal of the strong century-long trend, with larger metropolitan areas gaining the most net domestic migration. RCI’s analysis of Census Bureau data finds a stark turnaround from the period 2010-2015, when all categories of communities with fewer than 250,000 residents had more people leave than arrive.

The new data through 2024 reflects a profound reversal of this earlier trend, a shift from patterns that have existed for at least a century. Each of the population categories of 1,000,000 or more lost net domestic migration after 2015, while all of the smaller population categories gained net domestic migration.

Millennial Move to Smaller Places

The challenge of paying rent, much less buying a house, is transforming the decisions people make about where to live, particularly for those seeking to establish families or achieve middle-class lifestyles. “While I had a great job and a great apartment [in New York], I didn’t see how that would translate in the future to having a house or having work-life balance,” explained Katie MacLachlan, co-owner of the bar Walden in East Nashville. “I didn’t feel like New York City had that to offer unless you’re a billionaire.”

This marks a dramatic reversal from the faith in the mainstream media that millennials would inevitably flock to the big coastal cities and avoid smaller towns as backward, boring, and prejudiced. But repeating a meme does not make it true. Bigger core cities, such as New York, have actually lost both people, including young people between 25 and 39, since 2020. The much-ballyhooed era of elite coastal big city domination and small metro decline, so widely proclaimed in the national media, may well be past its sell-by date. In fact, after attracting the larger share of migrants between ages 25 and 44 for much of the past half-century, the big metro share has fallen since 2010, while smaller metros, and particularly areas with under 250,000 people, have surged in their appeal.

These migrants are finding that their conditions improved by moving. As Brookings Institution scholar Mark Muro has noted, salaries across a 19-state American Heartland region, adjusted for the cost of living, are above the national average. Another study found that of the 10 areas with the highest cost-adjusted incomes, eight are in the heartland. In contrast, those with the lowest adjusted incomes were entirely on the ocean coasts. 

Overall, many of the highest-salary metros look far less alluring for maturing adults and families. Among the 185 U.S. metro areas with at least 250,000 people, cost-of-living-adjusted salaries are highest in Brownsville-Harlingen, Texas, Fort Smith, Arkansas, and the Huntington-Ashland area, which spans the tri-state area in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. All 10 of the highest average salary metros are small and mid-size markets – none has more than 1 million people. Most are in the center of the country, and the only two in an expensive state – Visalia-Porterville and Modesto in California’s Central Valley, far from the state’s pricey coast. 

This shift also corresponds to the maturation of millennials. Despite media accounts that young people do not want to start families or own homes, most surveys show that the vast majority of Americans in their 30s want to replicate these foundations of middle-class life. Some 1 million millennials become mothers every year. Many seem attracted to smaller metros, where you can live near an old Main Street and not too far from farms that offer fresh produce. This lifestyle has been described as “urbalism,” which mixes proximity to a metro center and airport while still living in what remains a largely rural setting. 

Nationally, the age of the average homeowner is rising, up from early 30s in 1980 to 56 today. The places where people under 35 represent the largest share of new homeowners, however, are overwhelmingly in the Midwest, as well as in Provo, Utah, Colorado Springs, and Bakersfield, California. “The data shows that they leave [big metros],” said Nadia Evangelou, author of a recent National Association of Realtors study. “They cannot afford it, so they probably leave for that reason.” One study found that while 20% of people under 35 in places like Sioux Falls, South Dakota, an emerging tech center, own their own home, only 3.5% in San Jose can make the same claim.

Immigrants Join the Parade

As domestic migrants increasingly left the big metros early last decade, immigrants from abroad made up for the loss. In the New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago metros, the net international migration continued, but was outpaced by outmigration of current residents since 2020 But now, for the first time since the pioneer age, medium sized metros like Columbus, Indianapolis, and Des Moines, are now attracting a higher percentage of foreign migrants than traditional centers like Los Angeles, the San Francisco Bay Area, or New York. 

In the process, for example, Omaha, Nebraska, has just hit the 1 million population mark. Omaha has become much more ethnically diverse, experiencing rapid foreign-born growth of 28% from 2010 to 2019, more than double the 13% national rate, according to Census Bureau data. Although only 7% of Nebraskans are foreign-born, there are wide swaths in the Omaha area that reach over 20% foreign-born, with large numbers speaking another language at home. It may not be the turn of the century Lower East Side redux, but it signifies an ethnic change that few would have anticipated.

America’s New Nurseries

Rather than havens for the old, small metros and rural areas are now America’s prime nurseries. States in the Midwest and South, including North Dakota, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, and South Dakota, account for seven of the 10 areas aging the least rapidly from 2000 to 2023. North Dakota, once seen as hopelessly geriatric, has aged the least of all states since 2000. 

Much of this is connected to fertility. Overall, lower-density locales – with affordable homes, safe streets, and strong community cultures – are more conducive to families than denser urban areas. Eight of the 10 youngest big metros are located notably in the exurbs and smaller metros in the South, Midwest, and Mountain census regions. Rather than places doomed to become smaller and geriatric, these less dense places are becoming the nurseries of the nation.

Four of the six states with the highest birth rates were in North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Nebraska. At the same time, 14 of the 15 states with the lowest fertility rates were located in the Northeast and the West Coast. 

In terms of metros, those with lower-than-average birth rates included Los Angeles, New York, Portland, Seattle, Boston, Milwaukee, Chicago, Denver, San Francisco, Orlando, and Providence. In contrast, the highest birth rates were in markets with fewer than 250,000 residents – and they peaked in markets of 50,000 to 100,000 residents. Leading the pack were smaller markets such as Wheeling, West Virginia; Cheyenne, Wyoming; Clear Lake, California; Jacksonville, North Carolina; Decatur, Illinois; and Hobbs, New Mexico. 

The Future Is Dispersed

This shift in families says much about the future. Societies with low birthrates – as we now see in much of Europe, East Asia, and virtually everywhere but Sub-Saharan Africa – inevitably suffer a kind of cultural stagnation. They tend to have less demand not only for housing and other products but also for ideas. Young people, notes economist Gary Becker, are critical to an innovative economy, and in the U.S., more of them are likely to come from the interior.

Rather than see this movement as a negation of the American Dream, it is actually an enhancement, an echo of the great migrations that have expanded opportunities across this vast continent. The new dispersion does not mean the decline of the nation or the death of big cities. But the overall shift to smaller and revival of metros underscores the ever-adaptable nature of the “pursuit of happiness” that drives the relentless search by Americans for a better life.