Authored by J.T. Young via RealClearPolitics,

Democrats’ extremism continues to underwrite Donald Trump’s agenda. Since 2021, this has been the case, and it shows no sign of stopping. Rather than bolstering them as an alternative, Democrats are giving Trump the leverage to pursue his aggressive agenda.

President Trump remains divisive. While his job approval and favorability ratings are higher than they were eight years ago, they remain low. According to Real Clear Politics’ August 28 average of national polling, Trump’s approval rating is 45.3%-51.5% for -6.2% net; on August 28, 2017, Trump sat at -16.9%. According to RCP’s polling average of Trump’s favorability, he is 44.3%-52.1%, for -7.8%; on August 28, 2017, Trump was -17.9%.

Trump’s 2024 victory was a landslide in swing states and states between the coasts. However, Trump’s win in the popular (below 50%) and in the electoral votes (312-226) was hardly historic. Nor did he bring home large congressional majorities: Republican control of the Senate (by six votes, 53-47) and House (by five votes, 220-215) do not approach past presidents’ majorities. 

Yet Trump took office governing like FDR in his first 100 days. Now into his third “hundred days,” Trump is still doing so. And this is a president who was twice impeached and once defeated: No impeached president has ever been reelected (let alone a twice-impeached one), and the last time a defeated president was reelected occurred over 130 years ago. 

How is this continued momentum possible? Democrats’ extremism is making them even less popular. 

According to a recent WSJ poll, Democrats’ popularity is at a 35-year low. This is no outlier: Other polls show similar results. Between 2020 and 2024, Republicans gained up to 4.5 million registered voters versus Democrats, who saw net losses in all 30 states reviewed by the NYT. And Trump’s 2024 victory was attributable to an overwhelming win in “fly-over” country: The 46 states outside California, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington contain 80.5% of America’s electoral votes; Trump won 72% of them in 2024. 

The issues that the Biden-Harris ticket lost on last November are the same issues that Democrats are insistent about fighting Trump on now. 

On illegal immigration, RCP’s average of national polling showed Biden’s last job approval rating was just 33.5%. Yet Democrats continue to challenge Trump at every juncture: They have tried to make Kilmar Abrego Garcia into a martyr; they have stormed ICE detention facilities; they have tried to jeopardize ICE agents’ safety by pushing to bar them from wearing masks.   

On crime, RCP’s average of national polling showed Biden’s last job approval rating was just 38%. Yet Democrats continue to challenge Trump on his push against crime: They have objected to him deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C., despite D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser saying it has reduced the city’s crime; and they have threatened to take him to court if he tries to deploy the National Guard in crime-ridden Chicago.

The same anti-Trump intransigence has led Democrats to take similarly extremist positions on allowing biological males to compete against biological females (something Americans overwhelmingly oppose), to lock arms against Trump’s push to keep tax rates from rising to pre-2017 levels (every Democrat in the House and Senate voted against it), and for many, to object to his strike against terrorist-backing Iran’s nuclear facilities. 

Americans oppose allowing biological males to compete against girls and women. RCP’s average of national polling showed Biden’s last job approval rating on the economy – which would have been devastated by the tax hike that would have occurred if Democrats had blocked keeping 2017 tax rates in place – was just 38.8%. The RCP average showed Biden’s last job approval rating on foreign policy – to which America’s support for Israel has been foundational for decades – was a mere 35.6%. 

Time and time again, Democrats are choosing the wrong side of lopsided issues. In doing so, they are maintaining the margin between themselves and Trump, and they are not giving Americans a plausible alternative to Trump. No alternative means giving Trump all the leverage.

There is an old joke about two men encountering a lion. Terrified, the first man whispers to the other man, “What are you going to do?” “Run,” the other man whispers back. The first man responds, “Are you crazy, you can’t outrun a lion!”  “I don’t have to outrun the lion,” says the second, “I just have to outrun you.”

Right now, Trump is outrunning the Democrats, and the Democrats aren’t even making it a race.

J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left from RealClear Publishing and has over three decades’ experience working in Congress, the Department of Treasury, the Office of Management, and Budget, and representing a Fortune 20 company.

About 450 illegal aliens were detained in a multi-agency raid at Hyundai’s massive construction site for a new EV battery plant in Bryan County, Georgia.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), along with ICE, the FBI, and other agencies, said the workers were unlawfully employed, prompting investigations into immigration and labor violations. This highlights the need for the Trump administration to crack down on companies that hire illegals, including imposing criminal fines. 

ATF’s field office in Atlanta wrote on X that on Thursday, “A major immigration enforcement operation at the Hyundai mega site battery plant in Bryan County, GA, leading to the apprehension of ~450 unlawful aliens, emphasizing our commitment to community safety.” 

Today, @ATFAtlanta joined HSI, FBI, DEA, ICE, GSP and other agencies in a major immigration enforcement operation at the Hyundai mega site battery plant in Bryan County, GA, leading to the apprehension of ~450 unlawful aliens, emphasizing our commitment to community safety. #ATF pic.twitter.com/su6raLrLu6

— ATF Atlanta (@ATFAtlanta) September 4, 2025

Hyundai released a statement, quoted by Bloomberg, indicating it was aware of the mass arrests at its mega-site battery plant in Bryan County. Its partner, LG Energy Solution, said it is assessing the situation and coordinating with the Korean government and other authorities.

“We are closely monitoring the situation and working to understand the specific circumstances. As of today, it is our understanding that none of those detained is directly employed by Hyundai Motor Company,” Hyundai said. 

Bloomberg noted, “Unauthorized immigrants make up an estimated 5% of the American workforce and the widening crackdown threatens to wipe out hundreds of billions of dollars in economic output.” 

Recall that Hyundai received tax breaks and other incentives to create jobs at the battery plant. Yet, those 450 jobs did not go to Americans, but instead to illegals who likely sent some of their wages overseas.

Should Hyundai be held liable? Perhaps the Trump administration should get serious about fining employers who hire illegals and steal American jobs.

Related:

• Illegal Alien Arrested With Arsenal Of Weapons, Ammunition, Cocaine

. . . 

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

“Doctors are being paid to vaccinate, not to evaluate,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a recent video.

“They’re pressured to follow the money, not the science.”

Doctors administer dozens of vaccines to many children in the United States. Adults are also advised to receive multiple shots.

Here’s what to know about vaccines and payments.

What Does the Literature Say?

A review of studies confirms that some doctors profit from vaccinating.

In a 2020 paper, researchers found when analyzing three years’ worth of vaccination claims for five Colorado clinics that reimbursements averaged 125 percent of costs, making administering vaccines “financially favorable across the practices.”

Another study found that various providers in North Carolina, when receiving the maximum payment for reimbursement from insurers or the government, profited from vaccinating patients. Even if they received the minimum payment, pediatric and family medicine practices still reported positive income, according to the 2019 study.

On the other hand, other doctors say the costs of administering certain vaccines to certain people exceed the vaccine payments.

In a survey of 34 pediatricians, for instance, more than half said they do not profit from vaccinating, according to a 2009 paper.

A number of practitioners have also said they face escalating costs associated with vaccination, such as staffing, leading them to stop or consider stopping providing vaccines to patients with private insurance.

Reimbursement for vaccinating patients varies depending on whether patients have private or public insurance. Under a program called Vaccines for Children, the government also provides vaccines to doctors for free. It does not pay for related costs, but doctors can charge an administration fee that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says “helps providers offset their costs of doing business,” with the maximum varying by state.

A nurse prepares to give a COVID-19 vaccine to a boy as his mother comforts him in Denver on Nov. 3, 2021. Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

What About Those Bonuses?

Doctors can make extra money for vaccinating under incentive programs from insurers, as highlighted by Brian Hooker, a senior scientist with Children’s Health Defense—a group Kennedy chaired through 2023—and other witnesses during a hearing in July on vaccines held by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.).

“Some pediatricians can make upwards to a million or more a year just in those incentives,” Hooker said.

Asked for citations, Hooker pointed The Epoch Times to documents he collected from insurance companies that list available bonuses.

Links to those and other documents that outline incentives and are available online are provided below:

• Blue Cross Blue Shield Blue Care Network of Michigan: $400 per child who receives a set of 24 or 25 vaccine doses on or before their second birthday.

• Aetna Better Health of Louisiana: $10–$25 per member, depending on level of COVID-19 vaccination coverage practice-wide.

• Molina Healthcare of Ohio: $100 incentive for COVID-19 vaccination.

• Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield Medicaid: $50 per individual aged 6 months and older who received a COVID-19 vaccine by Dec. 31, 2022.

• United Healthcare Community Plan of Michigan: Incentives for patients who receive the meningococcal, Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis), and HPV vaccines by their 13th birthday.

• Meridian: Up to $120 per child who receives the 24 or 25 doses by their second birthday, or adolescents who received three certain doses by their 13th birthday, capped at $9,600 for each category.

• BlueCross BlueShield of Illinois: $149 for each child, if 63 percent or more meet criteria, who received the 24 or 25 vaccine doses by the time they turn 2.

• Central California Alliance for Health: Bonuses for children who receive at least 24 doses by the time they turn 2 and the three certain doses before they turn 13.

The sets of vaccines for which providers receive bonuses are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Paul Thomas, who ran a pediatric practice in Oregon, estimated in a 2021 study that he was losing more than $1 million a year by offering parents what he called informed consent, or detailed discussions about the benefits and risks of the recommended vaccines.

Thomas—who surrendered his license in 2022 after the Oregon Medical Board determined that his alternative vaccination schedule posed a danger to the public—told The Epoch Times in an email that he was forced to work harder, freeze salaries, and impose an administration fee on every patient to cover income he did not receive due to administering fewer vaccines than many practices. Thomas has said he was unfairly targeted, in litigation denied by courts that found the board is protected by “absolute immunity.”

People attend an American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) conference in Anaheim, Calif., on Oct. 8, 2022. AAP, as well as some other groups and doctors, have said physicians are not motivated by money when vaccinating patients. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

“It would be near impossible for current pediatric practices to survive if not clearly impossible if they were to suddenly lose half or all their vaccine income, not to mention the catastrophic nature of loss of ‘quality’ bonuses,” Thomas said.

Dr. Renata Moon, who sits on the board of directors for the American College of Pediatricians, said that her former employer in 2020 started tracking the vaccination rate for patients. She was unable to determine why and said she would not be surprised if they were receiving compensation.

“It is unethical for physicians to receive bonuses or monetary compensation for pushing the products of pharmaceutical companies. It’s a massive conflict of interest!” Moon told The Epoch Times via email. “Do they have the patient’s best interest at heart or are they focused on their bank accounts?”

What Do Other Doctors Say?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), as well as some other groups and doctors, have said physicians are not motivated by money when vaccinating patients.

“Pediatricians do not profit off vaccines,” the AAP said in a July 16 post on X.

The organization declined to make one of its experts available for an interview on the topic. When a spokeswoman was sent studies, including multiple published by the AAP’s journal Pediatrics, that show some pediatricians have made money from vaccinating, she pointed to an AAP webpage that states “pediatricians recommend childhood vaccines because they are one of our most effective tools to help keep children healthy and prevent diseases from spreading in communities.”

It also states, “pediatricians often take on significant costs to provide the vaccinations their patients need, and the minimal payments they receive do not always cover these costs.”

Among the costs, the group said: purchasing vaccines and storing them.

Dr. Todd Porter, a pediatrician employed in Illinois for a multi-specialty physician-led organization, said that he has not paid attention to whether he makes money from vaccinating children.

Doses of H1N1 influenza vaccine sit in a basket at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago on Oct. 6, 2009. Scott Olson/Getty Images

“I have to surprisingly side with the AAP on this one even though I no longer support the AAP on just about everything else,” Porter told The Epoch Times in an email. “As a pediatrician, my recommendation of routine childhood vaccines has nothing to do any reimbursement my office may receive and again I can honestly say I have no working knowledge of what that reimbursement would be.”

Porter says he has been motivated for the more than 20 years he has worked as a doctor to provide vaccines to minimize vaccine-preventable disease. He has never recommended the COVID-19 vaccines and believes the CDC and AAP did not provide adequate details around the risks and benefits of the shots.

“I have become a bit uncertain about the risk/benefit of each of the vaccines. I still would recommend these historical routine childhood vaccines, but with the growing vaccine hesitancy amongst parents I do not push them,” he wrote. “I also have stopped generally recommending the influenza vaccine until I see more rigorous data to show that it really works.”

Vaccination rates among kindergartners have declined in recent years, and a third of parents in a recent survey said they would be refusing some or all vaccines for their children.

Kennedy’s Statements

Kennedy has spoken several times recently about the payments for vaccinations. During an interview released in June with political commentator Tucker Carlson, he mentioned an article stating half of the revenue for most pediatricians comes from vaccines.

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for that alleged article.

“And then there’s a whole structure where Blue Cross and the other insurance companies pay bonuses to the pediatrician … and that’s why your pediatrician, if you say, ‘I want to go slow on the vaccines,’ or, ‘I want to have a little different schedule,’ your pediatrician will throw you out of his practice because you’re now jeopardizing that bonus structure,” Kennedy said. “And these are all perverse incentives that stop doctors from actually practicing medicine and caring for the client because they’re looking at the bottom line.”

Twenty-one percent of pediatricians told surveyors that they dismissed families who declined one or more vaccines, Dr. Sean O’Leary, the current chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, reported in a 2015 study. A 2020 review co-authored by O’Leary found evidence that dismissing families “appears to be increasing as a strategy for dealing with vaccine refusal.”

A form dismissal letter offered to doctors by the AAP states, “It has become clear that our philosophies regarding medical care differ greatly.” The letter directs parents to arrange for medical care for their children elsewhere.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington on June 24, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

O’Leary and other AAP officials said in a 2024 report that there are ethical issues about dismissing families, including whether doctors have a responsibility to care for all patients who come to them, Dismissal, they wrote, “can be an acceptable option … after repeated attempts to help understand and address parental values and vaccine concerns, engender trust, and strengthen the therapeutic alliance.”

Kennedy added in the X video on Aug. 8 that “we’re scanning every corner of the health care system for hidden incentives that corrupt medical judgment” and that officials had found “doctors are being paid to vaccinate, not to evaluate.”

He said that officials discovered that more than 36,000 doctors had reimbursements from Medicare altered based on the vaccination rates of children in their practices.

The video was released as Kennedy announced officials were repealing a previous policy that favored hospitals that reported the vaccination rates of staff members.

“Doctors should be guided by medical judgment and their Hippocratic Oath, not by financial incentives or government mandates,” Kennedy said. “That’s what this policy change is about, and it’s just the beginning.”

California is spending $239 million to transform San Quentin State Prison into what Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office once called the state’s “most notorious prison” into a Scandinavian-style rehabilitation center. Construction is set to finish in January 2026, with the first incarcerated people moving in soon after, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

The Chronicle writes that the plan dates back to Newsom’s 2018 election, when he halted executions, began dismantling Death Row, and ordered transfers of San Quentin inmates. In 2023, he unveiled a full-scale conversion into a Nordic-inspired campus aimed at preparing prisoners for life outside.

Modeled after systems in Norway, Denmark, and other Nordic countries, the project emphasizes rehabilitation through work, education, and “normalizing spaces” such as a self-service grocery store, café, farmers market, and podcast studio. Prisoners will have single rooms, reducing San Quentin’s population from 3,400 to about 2,400.

“The holistic initiative leverages international, data-backed best practices to improve the well-being of those who live and work at state prisons,” said Todd Javernick, a spokesperson for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He added the goal is “creating safer communities and a better life for all Californians, by breaking cycles of crime for the incarcerated population, while improving workplace conditions for institution staff.”

The state hired Danish architecture firm Schmidt Hammer Lassen and convened an advisory council of reform advocates, which recommended measures like making “good nutrition foundational to the San Quentin experience.”

Supporters hope the California Model will serve as a national blueprint, but critics argue the money should instead go to crime victims. Families of incarcerated people also worry transfers will send loved ones far from spouses and children.

San Quentin has already shifted from maximum to medium security, allowing in prisoners deemed lower-risk. Officials also note that closing Death Row reduces costs, as housing death-sentenced inmates can be twice as expensive.

The redesign includes three new buildings for media production, coding classrooms, a large multipurpose hall, café, and store.

Weeks after Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Glenn Beck that the power-bill crisis would last for “a few years,” America’s top energy official told Fox Business on Tuesday that rising electricity costs remain his top concern.

“It’s what I worry about most seven days a week,” Wright told Fox Business’ Maria Bartiromo. “We want to stop the rise in electricity for Americans and reshore jobs and opportunity there.”

The Trump administration is racing to restore and expand stable fossil-fuel power generation (see the EO), after parts of the nation’s grid were left in a fragile state by the Biden-Harris regime’s unreliable green-energy policies, amid surging power demand from data center buildouts – all in an effort to compete with China. 

In mid-August, Goldman analysts led by Hongcen Wei told clients, “We find that 9 out of 13 US regional power markets have already reached critical tightness this summer, while expecting all but one to reach critical tightness by 2030.” 

Wei warned: “Critical tightness could lead to power price spikes and blackouts with significant social and economic losses.”

By the end of the summer, nine of the 13 U.S. regional power grids have already reached dangerously low spare capacity levels, which are at or below the critical reliability threshold. This raises blackout threats and results in power price spikes during high-demand usage hours. 

This tightening is most evident in the Mid-Atlantic region…

The epicenter of the power crisis is in Maryland. 

Bloomberg suggested earlier that the power bill crisis could become a political liability for Republicans ahead of the midterms. However, the real-world example playing out in Maryland shows it’s hurting Democrats bigly.

Maryland Democrats are pointing fingers at the regional grid operator. Still, it was their own party that spent years championing unreliable solar and wind while retiring coal plants, leaving the grid in a state of chaos – on the brink of collapse last month (read here). 

Now comes the informational war used by both parties that will blame each other for the power bill mess.

In one year, this will be the most popular chart on this site pic.twitter.com/h93gWXMoNL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 11, 2025

Wright told Congress earlier this year that solar and wind subsidies have been disastrous for the grid.

Lobbyists’ worst nightmare: 4 minutes of Energy Secretary Chris Wright telling Congress why solar and wind subsidies must be terminated ASAP. pic.twitter.com/GlBNv75pDp

— Alex Epstein (@AlexEpstein) June 11, 2025

Recently, Wright told Fox Business about Trump’s plan to add “more energy to the grid.”  

Sec. Chris Wright: “For 30 years… we’ve paid people to build intermittent sources that only work when the wind’s blowing or when the sun’s shining. The more of that you put on the grid, the more expensive electricity becomes for Americans.”pic.twitter.com/P0iXZKlFMj

— Thomas Sowell Quotes (@ThomasSowell) July 2, 2025

. . . 

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

“We are the sickest country in the world. That’s why we have to fire people at the CDC … They did not do their job! This was their job to keep us healthy!”

– Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

What a gruesome spectacle it was to see HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. take on a conclave of vicious grifters on the Senate Finance Committee straining to warp reality in defense of their mighty patron, the nation-wrecking pharmaceutical companies.

Do you understand how deep, convoluted, and grave the political sickness is?

Over the years, the public health agencies and “big pharma” had evolved into a symbiotic vector driving the nation into chronic illness. They allowed the population to poison themselves on a diet of corn syrup, engineered snack foods, and chemical additives. Result: epidemic obesity, diabetes, and many other illnesses. To counter that, they dosed everybody to-the-max with sketchily-tested pharma products while the agency employees raked in royalties and pharma got a get-outa-jail-free card in the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) — legal liability cancelled.

Then, they all badly mis-stepped, conniving in the Covid-19 operation, a still poorly-comprehended scheme to punk the American people and enable mail-in ballot fraud to steal the 2020 election. First, there was Dr. Fauci’s years’ long effort to hatch a novel corona virus, Covid-19, in labs here and overseas. Then, there was the opportune release of the virus in 2019. Then, the pharma response to the virus: a “miracle” mRNA vaccine that was likely already developed in secret, even before Operation Warp Speed was acted-out to pretend that pharma just came up with it. And, of course, there was President Trump 1.0 getting hosed by his Covid Response Team (Fauci, Birx, et al.) on all this.

Thus, you have that battery of US Senators all paid handsomely by Pharma to defend the industry with hysterical obfuscation against the lone figure, Mr. Kennedy, striving to correct all that fantastic corruption. He retorted to their malign nonsense honorably, revealing their conflicts of interest, their cupidity, the bales of dollars paid by pharma to the likes of Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the rest over the years, and their longstanding silence on the afore-mentioned poisoning and drugging of America.

Incidentally, to understand how this grift got so exorbitant, look to the unfortunate 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (558 U.S. 310). In a 5-4 ruling (by majority conservative justices, then including Alito, Thomas, and Scalia), SCOTUS decided that previous prohibitions on corporate money in election campaigns were unconstitutional because corporations enjoy legal status as persons, that is, as citizens, and giving money to election campaigns is a form of free speech under the first Amendment, which can’t be abridged by any law.

And so, the spigot opened on vast fortunes laid on politicians by corporations seeking to protect their interests. If anything went to warp speed, it was the Beltway lobbying industry. The Citizens United decision was a singular tragedy for our country. The legal reasoning behind it was specious because corporations, unlike real human citizens, do not have duties, obligations, and responsibilities to the nation, entailed in their citizenship. Rather, corporations have duties, obligations, and responsibilities solely (and explicitly in law) to their shareholders, whose interests are not necessarily consistent with the public interest. Why has no one noticed this?

Well, they haven’t and that is exactly where American politics went badly off-the-rails. The resulting accelerated corruption in the public health agencies of our government has been a disgusting side effect of all that, which RFK, Jr., has been called to clean up, a Herculean task. The most visible manifestation of that corruption is the chronic illness of the people — 76.4 percent of all of us, he told the committee, with eight out of ten young men physically unfit for military service. We’re the sickest nation in the world.

When the senators confabulate over “the science,” what they really mean is the armature of medical authority that has enabled the money-flow to their campaign committees (and eventually to their own bank accounts.) It’s that very scaffold of authority that has collapsed. Why? Because the medical authorities lied over and over about the Covid-19 episode, and especially about the vaccines, which were never properly tested, and were neither safe nor effective.

Your own doctors got paid extravagantly to push the vaccine. The so-called Pfizer Papers, collected, collated, and analyzed by Naomi Wolf’s organization (because nobody else would do it) showed the sloppiness of the whole process behind the vaccines’ development and release, and the pharma companies’ evasion of responsibility for the damage done. The medical journals lied about everything from the origin of the virus to the efficacy of the vaccine. The CDC campaigned against viable, inexpensive treatments for the virus. The CDC pushed the worthless, gamed PCR tests to jack up the case numbers. The CDC pushed the idiotic mask rules, school closings, business closures, and the vaccine mandates. The hospitals killed people with remdesivir and respirators, and got paid for it! The authority of all these parties is blown, especially the CDC’s — and these perfidious senators have the gall to hide behind this “science”?

What Mr. Kennedy is challenged with is sorting through all the official lies told by these agencies — the so-called “data” — to arrive at a comprehensible picture of what really happened. And then to inquire beyond Covid into many other pharma products that might be making Americans sick. Neither the politicians nor the people employed by the agencies when Covid went down want that to happen.

Authored by Vince Dioquino via Decrypt.co,

• Stablecoin issuer Tether has held talks on investing in gold miners and royalty firms, after already acquiring $8.7 billion worth of bullion.

• Meanwhile, El Salvador bought nearly 14,000 ounces of gold for $50 million, its first central bank purchase since 1990.

• Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino has previously described gold as “natural Bitcoin,” and suggested in a separate interview that if a global “reset” were to occur, it would “happen in gold.”

Tether, the world’s largest stablecoin issuer, has reportedly been in discussions with mining and investment groups to deploy billions into the gold industry, according to a Financial Times report late Thursday.

The talks reportedly span mining, refining, trading, and royalty companies, following chief executive Paolo Ardoino’s view of gold as “the natural Bitcoin.”

“I prefer to think in Bitcoin terms, and I think gold is kind of a resource of nature and is almost like the natural Bitcoin,” Ardoino said onstage at the Bitcoin 2025 conference back in May.

Tether is also moving to deepen its role in the sector, planning to spend about $100 million more to increase its previous 37.8% stake in Toronto-listed Elemental Altus Royalties, a Canadian firm that buys future revenue streams from gold mines, according to a report from Bloomberg early Friday.

“Access to capital is one of the key constraints in the royalty and streaming business; Tether’s support is fully aligned with our growth strategy,” David Baker, CFO at Elemental Altus Royalties, said in a statement shared with Decrypt.

He added that, “Since their first investment in June, Tether has been very supportive of the company and management,” noting that prior to the merger announcement the firm had announced almost $70 million of gold royalty acquisitions in Australia and Liberia.

Tether is already among the world’s biggest private holders of the metal.

The company disclosed $8.7 billion in gold bars held in a Zurich vault in its Q2 2025 attestation report, collateralizing part of its operations.

In 2020, the firm launched Tether Gold, a gold-backed stablecoin backed by more than 7.7 tons of the precious metal, according to an April 2025 attestation report by accounting firm BDO Italia.

Tether did not immediately return Decrypt’s request for comment.

El Salvador’s first gold buy in 35 years

Tether’s gold push comes as Banco Central de Reserva, El Salvador’s central bank, announced its first bullion purchase in 35 years, buying 13,999 troy ounces for $50 million, raising the country’s holdings to 58,105 ounces, worth an estimated $207 million.

The central bank characterized the purchase as a diversification play for its $4.7 billion in foreign reserves, according to a syndicated report from Agencia EFE.

El Salvador has already accumulated more than 6,200 bitcoin, now valued at over $706 million based on current prices, according to data from Bitcoin Treasuries. Earlier this week, the country’s Bitcoin Office confirmed that it has moved its crypto holdings to new addresses, following security concerns.

These moves suggest that large sovereign Bitcoin holders, such as El Salvador, and major crypto industry names, including Tether, are beginning to frame gold as a complementary hedge, treating it less as a rival asset and more as a partner in diversification strategies.

A source working on Tether’s regional expansion efforts declined to comment, citing internal policies, and instead directed Decrypt to Ardoino’s interview with Anthony Pompliano in August, where he argued that gold could be viewed as a counterweight to fiat, not a rival to Bitcoin.

In the interview, Ardoino suggested traders might choose to rotate into bullion at cycle peaks, given its 6,000-year history and scale as a reserve asset.

“There is time for everything, and I think that when […] if the world will go to hell in the next 5 years, there’s good chances that part of the reset will happen in gold,” Ardoino said.

Amid all the hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing over President Trump’s ‘firing’ of Fed Governor Lisa Cook (for alleged mortgage fraud), the market seems increasingly complacent that The Fed’s holier-than-thou independence is under threat.

For its part, the market shows no fear whatsoever about USA sovereign risk…

Perhaps the market doesn’t believe the hype that Fed ‘independence’ is actually under threat by the president’s actions… or perhaps, the market knows full well that The Fed has never been truly independent, and the temper tantrums being thrown by establishment types is merely the vinegar strokes ending the delusion that maintains The Fed’s unquestionable omniscience?

First things first though, we need to know what’s at stake and no one has described the shifts in perceptions of Fed independence better recently than Citadel Securities’ Nohshad Shah:

RESERVE CURRENCY STATUS, GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN TECH INNOVATION, THE WORLD’S BEST ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS, BEING A MAGNET FOR GLOBAL TALENT…AND CRUCIALLY, THE RULE OF LAW WITH INDEPENDENT INSTITUTIONS…HAVE COMBINED TO ENSURE THAT THE US HAS BEEN THE MOST COMPETITIVE PLACE ON EARTH TO DO BUSINESS AND GROWTH HAS EXCEEDED MOST OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD BY A WIDE MARGIN…OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “US EXCEPTIONALISM”.

A core part of this construct is the independence of the Federal Reserve, and this remains sacrosanct in the minds of global investors. There is concern amongst market participants that President Trump’s recent move to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook could be an attempt to garner greater influence over central bank policy. Whilst the merits of the case will surely be analysed thoroughly by the courts, markets are uneasy about the broader emphasis of this Administration on Unitary Executive Theory…the constitutional doctrine that the US President holds sole absolute authority over the entire executive branch including all federal agencies, departments, and officers…and the power to remove any executive branch official at will.

Proponents of this doctrine argue it is vested in the President from Article II of the Constitution and that other branches of government (including Congress and Courts) should not limit or interfere with Presidential Authority, thereby ensuring maximum accountability…ultimately to voters. Of course, as with much of US public discourse, this is a contentious issue with critics warning that it concentrates too much power in one seat undermining checks and balances, risking authoritarianism. In the near-term, should the President succeed in removing Cook, he would be appointing two new governors (including Miran), which when you include Governors Waller and Bowman, takes him to a majority of four out of seven on the Board aligned with his views. 

Not only does this have an impact on upcoming FOMC decisions, but it allows Trump to re-shape the entire FOMC given the Board must reappoint all regional Fed presidents in February next year. However, there are several obstacles. First, it is unclear if Cook’s firing will stand – the President can fire a Fed member for “cause”, but there remains uncertainty around whether the mortgage fraud allegations made against Cook meet this definition: negligence of duty, inefficiency, or malfeasance. Friday’s initial hearing of the case ended without a ruling – we will learn more in coming days. There is also a broader executive authority consideration for the Supreme Court, which in May allowed the President to fire two members of the NLRB, asserting that agencies exercising “considerable executive power” fall closer to Article II authority in a boon to unitary executive theory…

BUT…earmarking the Federal Reserve as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States” suggesting a carve out of sorts for the Fed due to it being a constitutionally exceptional institution with roots in the country’s earliest banking history. Interestingly, Justice Kavanaugh has written approvingly of the Fed’s independence in the past (h/t Brooke Cucinella): 

“To be sure, in some situations it may be worthwhile to insulate particular agencies from direct presidential oversight or control—the Federal Reserve Board may be one example, due to its power to directly affect the short-term functioning of the U.S. economy by setting interest rates and adjusting the money supply.” (Brett M. Kavanaugh, Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond, 93 Minn. L. Rev. 1454, 1474 (2009)). 

So even with SCOTUS’ broader embrace of unitary executive doctrine, we remain in murky waters as to where this issue lands. Second, whilst Governors Waller and Bowman are currently firmly in the dovish camp, this was certainly not always the case…indeed when inflation surged in 2021, Waller was an early proponent for tightening monetary policy pushing for both tapering asset purchases and aggressive rate hikes in 2022. Similarly, Bowman’s stance until late 2023 was hawkish. 

The point here is that whilst there might be short-term incentives to be dovish given the backdrop of Chair selection, both are seasoned professionals with a track-record of public service…so if the economic growth and inflation picture shifts (as I expect), so should their monetary policy views. And finally, regarding the election of regional fed bank presidents…the Board of governors does indeed have an effective veto on appointments, but it will not be trivial to exert influence upon each of the 12 regional bank boards of directors, with a total of 6 per board (72 directors in total, most of them public representatives) required to affect the selection process. 

In sum, I expect this to be an ongoing saga to be played out in the courts in coming months whilst remaining a source of uncertainty and volatility for asset prices.

ANY EROSION OF FED INDEPENDENCE WILL HAVE UNTOLD IMPLICATIONS FOR THE US AND GLOBAL ECONOMIES…

…and this is starting to play out in market pricing…1y1y USD forward swaps are 3.02%, priced for a return of policy rates back to what most consider neutral…something I would consider to be a dovish outcome, given the current backdrop for the US economy (unless the labour market collapses in coming months)…and yet 10y10y forward swaps have risen to 4.66%, the highest in over a decade (chart below). 

This likely reflects a level of concern from bond markets around deficits (which continue to rise)….inflation (above target and at-risk of rising w/tariff effects)…and risk premium for Fed independence. It also serves as a reminder for policymakers that the economy is most impacted by the long-end rate not the short-end (10x multiplier for FCI). Whilst these levels are still within acceptable ranges, one need only look over the pond at the UK to see what happens when investors are perennially concerned about governments’ ability to manage the fiscal outlook…30y Gilt yields (5.60%) have been rising consistently for four years now and have risen over 100bps since July 2024 when the BOE started cutting policy rates from 5.25% to 4.00%!

Perhaps the biggest sign for US policymakers should be the ~13% depreciation of the US dollar against EUR this year, far outpacing what interest rate differentials would suggest.

All told, the risks of damaging Fed independence are akin to damaging Brand USA and the medium-term implications are likely to be wide-ranging and uncertain…not to mention the consequences of allowing inflation to spiral out of control. Inflation credibility has been hard won by central banks across the developed world, most notably in the 1970s. In their most recent fight, the majority have been unable to bring inflation back to target reflecting wide ranging changes in the global economy…most importantly the introduction of pro-cyclical fiscal policy (despite large deficits) and a partial unwind of globalisation.

This does not seem like an opportune time to lose control of this mandate.

But, what if The Fed is already un-independent?

No lesser authority than Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has just this day unleashed his sword pen in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, “The Fed’s ‘Gain of Function’ Monetary Policy”, pointing out that the central bank put its own independence at risk by straying from its narrow statutory mandate.

In the lengthy op-ed, Bessent critiques the Fed’s post-2008 monetary policies, comparing them to a risky “gain-of-function” experiment with unpredictable outcomes.

He argues that The Fed’s over-use of complex, nonstandard tools, mission creep, and regulatory overreach have undermined its independence, credibility, and effectiveness.

The most notable aspects of The Fed’s failures include:

• Failed Forecasts: The Fed’s over-reliance on flawed models led to significant errors, like overestimating GDP growth post-2008, missing the impact of supply-side policies, and fostering inequality through a wealth effect that favored asset owners.

• Economic Inequality: Policies like quantitative easing disproportionately benefited large firms and homeowners, widening class and generational gaps, as noted in Karen Petrou’s book: “Engine of Inequality”.

• Eroded Independence: The Fed’s expanded role in fiscal-like interventions, Treasury debt management, and bank regulation (e.g., post-Dodd-Frank) has blurred lines between monetary and fiscal policy, creating conflicts of interest and enabling fiscal irresponsibility.

• Regulatory Failures: The 2023 Silicon Valley Bank collapse highlights the risks of combining monetary policy with bank supervision, which should be delegated to agencies like the FDIC.

Bessent concludes by stating that The Fed’s overreach has caused economic distortions, inequality, and a loss of credibility, threatening its independence.

It must scale back and recommit to its core mandate to ensure economic stability and public confidence.

Bessent’s suggestion is that The Fed should simplify its toolkit, use unconventional policies only in emergencies, and undergo an independent review to refocus on its mandate of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate interest rates. This is critical to restore public trust and safeguard its independence.

Authored by Matthew Vadum and Sam Dorman via The Epoch Times,

New York Attorney General Letitia James filed an appeal on Sept. 4 of a court ruling that threw out an estimated $500 million penalty in President Donald Trump’s business fraud case.

James’s office filed a notice of appeal with the New York Supreme Court in Manhattan, indicating an appeal was being launched with the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals of the State of New York, on behalf of the state. The brief notice does not spell out arguments from James as to why the appeal should be allowed.

The filing came after a ruling on Aug. 21 by the New York Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department, a branch of the New York Supreme Court, tossed the penalty in a fractured ruling but left the civil judgment against Trump undisturbed. The case concerned allegations that the Trump Organization was involved in financial fraud by misrepresenting property values.

The trial judge, New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engoron, ruled against Trump in February 2024, issuing a judgment of more than $460 million, with interest accruing. Trump posted a bond of $175 million, and the appeals process moved forward in the New York Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment issued by Engoron, but the panel of five judges was divided, filing three separate opinions, including partial dissents.

Two of the jurists—Justices Peter Moulton and Dianne Renwick—said they thought James “acted well within her lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so.” However, both disagreed with the high-dollar penalty.

Moulton said in a concurring opinion that the lower court’s penalty order “is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Justices John Higgitt and Llinet Rosado joined an opinion saying Engoron’s judgment should be vacated and a new trial ordered.

Justice David Friedman criticized James, saying she was focused on “political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business.”

He said that the court’s ruling “unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business.”

Trump hailed the Appellate Division ruling in an Aug. 21 post on Truth Social, saying he achieved “total victory” and that he was “so honored by Justice David Friedman’s great words of wisdom.”

James lauded the Appellate Division ruling when it came out.

“The First Department today affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud,” she said on X.

“The court upheld the injunctive relief we won, limiting Donald Trump and The Trump Organization officers’ ability to do business in New York.”

It is unclear when the Court of Appeals of the State of New York will act on the appeal.

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

A federal appeals court on Sept. 4 upheld a lower court ruling that blocked enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order banning the use of gender-neutral markers on passports.

U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued an injunction in April blocking the Department of State from enforcing the passport policy against six plaintiffs who filed the case, later expanding it in June to grant class certification, covering other Americans identifying as nonbinary or transgender.

In the Sept. 4 ruling, the court’s three-panel judge stated that the government failed to meaningfully address the district court’s finding that the changes to passport policy were rooted in “unconstitutional animus toward transgender Americans.”

The judges noted that the federal government did not meet its burden to secure a stay, despite its argument that blocking the policy could harm “certain long-term institutional interests of the executive branch.”

“In contrast, based on the named plaintiffs’ affidavits and the expert declarations submitted by the plaintiffs, the district court made factual findings that the plaintiffs will suffer a variety of immediate and irreparable harms from the present enforcement of the challenged policy, including ‘a greater risk of experiencing harassment and violence’ while traveling abroad,” the judges stated.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Massachusetts, which represented the plaintiffs, said the ruling ensures that “transgender, non-binary, and intersex people will continue to be able to obtain accurate passports.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

The United States had permitted individuals who identify as transgender and intersex to choose a different sex for their passport than their birth sex since 1992, pending submission of medical documentation, until the rules were changed in 2021 under President Joe Biden.

The Biden administration allowed people to self-select their passport sex marker based on gender identity. Individuals who identified as non-binary or intersex were allowed to select an “X” marker rather than “M” or “F.”

After taking office on Jan. 20, Trump signed an executive order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” mandating that government-issued identification documents, including passports, use sex rather than gender identity.

“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” the order stated.

ACLU filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of the plaintiffs challenging Trump’s order. Kobick ruled in their favor in April, noting that the administration failed to demonstrate substantial government interests in changing the passport policy.

Joseph Lord contributed to this report.