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.

Donald Trump’s tariffs split opinion—champions said they were leverage to rebuild U.S. industry, while critics argued they were hidden taxes that raised costs and invited retaliation. At last night’s ZH Debate, Cornell chemistry professor Dave Collum — fresh off his Tucker Carlson controversy — moderated as Peter Schiff and Brent Johnson squared off on trade, tariffs, and the future of the dollar.

Brent is no fan of tariffs but thinks there is some wisdom to Trump’s long-term plan and that the U.S. dollar still reigns supreme. Peter… well all ZH readers know where Peter stands.

Below were the key moments for those short on time:

Trump Has Trade Deficits Wrong

Peter Schiff argued that America’s trade deficits are misunderstood. “It’s actually the other way around,” he said, pushing back on Donald Trump’s claim that the U.S. is being taken advantage of. “We take advantage of the world. They give us goods produced at significant cost in resources, land, labor, capital… and all we do is run off dollars on a printing press, cost us nothing, and we give it to them.”

Brent Johnson responded that this imbalance is exactly what comes with America’s position. “That’s the privilege of being the hegemon as you get global.”

Schiff countered that such privilege is temporary. “It’s the privilege that we are about to lose. That’s what $3,500 gold tells you. Dollar is on the way out as the reserve currency.”

pic.twitter.com/mgb8ovZcPy

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) September 5, 2025

“I expect Powell to lose”

Brent went on record with a bold call that included something rarely seen in market commentary: timing.

He predicts — as soon as October — a 10 or 20% market downturn… perhaps welcomed by the Trump admin so they can blame the Fed and lower rates.

“To get the cover to do that, they need some pain. I don’t think they can do that right now with things the way they already are.”

“Some kind of a crisis that they blame on the Fed, and then they go back to even easier monetary policy than maybe they had last time. And that is what then gives the fuel to go much higher.”

With markets at record highs and inflation still sticky, “it’s really hard to do it now.”

Brent’s prediction: “I think Powell is pushing back a little bit. But this is the thing—I expect Powell to lose. I think Trump and Bessent are going to get control.”

pic.twitter.com/glftJKmeJ6

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) September 5, 2025

Watch the full debate below or listen on Spotify for more fun moments like this one…

Schiff on the world’s attitude towards the U.S. dollar once rates drop: “Shove it up your ass.”

pic.twitter.com/WUfI9OLwqc

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) September 5, 2025

Full Debate (X, YT, and Spotify):

https://t.co/dhOGAvwTtX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2025

Via American Greatness,

Three top lawyers for the Democratic fundraising organization ActBlue have been subpoenaed by members of the House Administration, Judiciary and Oversight committees who are probing the group’s ties to alleged fraudulent donations.

The individuals who have been summoned to be deposed by House investigators include former ActBlue general counsel Darrin Hurwitz and ex-director and associate general counsel Aaron Ting as well as another anonymous ActBlue lawyer.

They have been asked to appear for depositions on Oct. 15, 21 and 28.

🚨 Our investigation into ActBlue continues.

Today, Chairmen @RepBryanSteil, @Jim_Jordan, and @RepJamesComer issued subpoenas to one current and two former ActBlue employees to appear for depositions.

Read more from @nypost ⬇️https://t.co/nVvNydQREg

— House Admin. Committee GOP (@HouseAdmin) September 4, 2025

The New York Post reports that records previously uncovered by the House committees show that Hurwitz, Ting and the unidentified counsel worked with the platform’s fraud prevention team to relax the organization’s donation standards during the 2024 election cycle.

ActBlue is accused of allowing debit and credit transactions to be processed without requiring a card verification value (CVV) until January 2024 and then further instructed employees to “look for reasons to accept contributions.”

In April and September of 2024, guidelines were further relaxed allowing between 14 and 28 fraudulent contributions each month.

A report released in March from House Oversight and Administration Committee staff, showed that ActBlue had 1900 fraudulent transactions between February 2022 and November 2024.

The letter released Thursday by the House committees, says, “Other internal ActBlue documents show that top fraud-prevention staff assessed that there were several mechanisms by which bad actors could evade ActBlue’s fraud-prevention systems and make illicit donations.”

In that letter, Administration Committee Chairman Bryan Steil (R-WI), Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) and Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-KY) affirmed that, “Congress has a specific interest in ensuring that bad actors, including foreign actors, cannot make fraudulent or illegal political donations through online fundraising platforms. Our oversight to date indicates that current law may be insufficient to stop these illicit donations.”

The organization was also found to have fraudulently used the names and personal confidential information of American citizens, without their knowledge or permission, to launder money through the ActBlue platform.

An overnight investigation has found even more disturbing evidence of donation fraud in my name…

ActBlue FEC campaign reports claim I donated multiple $2 amounts to Democratic candidates in Kansas.

I have never stepped foot in Kansas.

I have never donated to any candidate. pic.twitter.com/JPYA9ZTp3m

— Matt Van Swol (@matt_vanswol) March 20, 2025

Lululemon shares in New York crashed on Friday after the upscale athletic apparel retailer slashed its full-year earnings guidance, citing the Trump administration’s move to end the de minimis exemption loophole.

“This is a disappointing update from LULU, and we expect shares to underperform peers tomorrow as a result,” Goldman analyst Brooke Roach wrote in a first take note to clients after the earnings release on Thursday. 

Across the board, Lululemon cut its FY25 outlook, lowering revenue expectations in the US, Canada, and China as demand for its overpriced sports bras, workout tops, and leggings weakens.

Roach provided more color on the outlook downgrade: 

The company lowered its FY25 outlook across all key line items. For FY25, LULU’s lowered its revenue growth expectations for the US, Canada and China as consumer demand for the brand continues to soften, and margin pressures have increased as a result of (1) Incremental tariff rate increases (~50bps net headwind vs. 40bps prior); (2) Changes in the de minimis exemption (~170bps net headwind); (3) Elevated promotionality (~50bps headwind vs. 10-20bps prior); and (4) Incremental SG&A deleverage due to FX and ongoing investments in Power of 3×2 initiatives (~80-90bps deleverage vs. ~50bps prior). Management noted they expect a ~$320mn EBIT headwind from tariffs (incl. de minimis pressures) as they look out to FY26.

As a result, Lululemon shares plunged in New York, down about 16% by 10:00 a.m. EST. Year-to-date, the stock is off 55%, hitting lows not seen since early 2020.

Roach is “Neutral” on the stock. He explained (Pro Subs read here) that he lowered his 12-month price target to $200 from the previously stated $232.

Other Wall Street analysts noted weakness in its US business. Stifel downgraded the stock to “Hold” from “Buy.” 

According to Bloomberg data, 28.9% of Wall Street analysts rate the stock a “Buy,” 57.9% a “Hold,” and 13.2% a “Sell.”

More commentary (courtesy of Bloomberg):

Stifel’s Peter McGoldrick (cut to hold from buy, PT to $205 from $324)

• The meaning FY25 guidance cut was due to challenges from domestic market pressures and removal of the de minimis exemption

• While the acknowledgment of underperformance within the casual side of the business is a starting point, “reigniting brand momentum in the US is likely to take longer than we had previously anticipated”

Bloomberg Intelligence’s Poonam Goyal

• “Lululemon is facing increased pain from tariffs and slowing sales, notably in the Americas”

• Along with guidance for a $240 million annual hit to gross profit from tariffs and the removal of the de minimis exemption, the company cut its earnings guide

JPMorgan’s Matthew Boss (neutral, PT to $191 from $224)

• The company’s 2Q same-store-sales was weighed down by weak Americas comps, “which sequentially worsened over the course of the quarter despite taking higher than planned markdowns”

• “Merchandise mix reset required into spring 2026”

Jefferies’ Randal Konik (underperform; PT $150)

• Says the US business is declining, adding that the third- quarter earnings appear to be a “little better,” but the topline miss is the major issue due to competition and will continue to worsen given the below Street outlook

• “We believe guidance cuts continue and will become more severe through the end of the fiscal year”

EMARKETER’s Suzy Davidkhanian

• Lululemon’s second-quarter results were mixed as revenue grew 7% to $2.5 billion, but missed guidance, while adjusted EPS beat expectations

• “Once the trailblazer in athleisure, Lululemon has lost its innovation edge, now squeezed by luxury newcomers like Alo Yoga and private-label dupes with comparable fabric tech at lower prices” 

• “Looking ahead, holiday gifting may provide a short-term lift, but sustainable growth hinges on whether Lululemon can move credibly into new sport verticals and find the right formula for its footwear”

Queue the Sweeney ad…

And… it’s up 50% https://t.co/BjlDaAs5fu pic.twitter.com/MMkzdTcNxV

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2025

. . .

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

An emergency bill to require California schools to notify parents and school staff when federal immigration officers are operating in the area passed the state Legislature on Sept. 2.

Senate Bill 98—dubbed the Sending Alerts to Families in Education, or SAFE Act—is now waiting to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“With students returning to school, this legislation is more important than ever,” the bill’s author, state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, a Democrat from Pasadena, said in a statement. “The SAFE Act will inform and protect immigrant students and their families on school campuses.”

If signed into law, the measure will require all elementary, secondary, charter schools, and college campuses to make the notifications. The schools would need to update their safety plans to include procedures for the notifications and provide additional resources for families about their educational rights, state privacy laws, and counseling or support services.

The notification would also be required to include the date, time, and location of the immigration enforcement.

The legislation includes an urgency clause, which means it would take effect immediately after Newsom signs it, instead of the typical date of Jan. 1, 2026.

California schools serve an estimated 133,000 children ages 3 to 17 who are illegal immigrants, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based global immigration policies think tank.

More than 2.7 million people in California are illegal immigrants, and over 400,000 have moved to the state within the last five years, the institute reported.

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border on his first day in office Jan. 20, making immigration enforcement a top priority. Since then, federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations have included checking the welfare of immigrant children who crossed the border illegally and without a parent in the past four years.

In April, two elementary schools in Los Angeles denied entry to Department of Homeland Security investigators checking on the health and safety of such children.

“DHS is leading efforts to conduct welfare checks on these children to ensure that they are safe and not being exploited, abused, and sex trafficked,” a department spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email at the time.

In the face of ongoing federal immigration operations, Pérez said the SAFE Act can help “inform and empower school communities to make the best decisions about their safety and their family’s safety.”

“I urge [Newsom] to sign the SAFE Act,” Pérez continued. “Students and their families have been living in fear. California must ensure our schools and colleges remain places where students can learn, teachers can teach, and classrooms can be safe places for young Californians.”

The legislation was a priority of the California Latino Legislative Caucus and was sponsored by the state’s Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the University of California Student Association, California State Student Association, Student Senate for California Community Colleges, California Faculty Association, and others.

“Our immigrant families are living in fear and our time to act is limited,” Thurmond said in a statement. “The school year has begun, and now is the time to make decisive efforts to protect our communities and maintain school as a safe place for learning.”

Aaron Villarreal, chair of the Cal State Student Association, said he has witnessed classmates and colleagues struggle with fear of immigration enforcement.

“This anxiety is not unique to Sacramento State but is shared across all 22 campuses,” Villarreal said.

Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White emerged from a White House meeting on Thursday, declaring to his nearly 11 million Instagram followers: 

We had the meeting at the White House. It could not have gone better. This is going to be awesome. The White House fight is on. I’ll have more details on that in the next couple of weeks, but we got it done today.

What White was referring to is UFC’s Octagon fight, which is coming to the White House’s South Lawn next year. In fact, the event is scheduled for June 2026, just before America’s 250th birthday celebration on July 4. 

Here are more details from The Wall Street Journal:

The initial idea called for the event—a full card featuring men and women—to be held July 4, 2026, as a capstone to America’s 250th birthday celebration. But with so many events already planned, the date shifted to sometime in June, people involved in the planning said. UFC plans to have a large presence in Washington ahead of the event, with several days of fan festivities on the National Mall, which are to include autograph sessions with UFC stars and punching bags for tourists to test their skills.

Trump spokesman Steven Cheung told the outlet:

This will be one of the greatest and most historic sports events in history, and President Trump hosting it at the White House is a testament to his vision to celebrate America’s monumental 250th anniversary.

UFC at the White House represents a new era in America – one that celebrates the youth of “strong men” – in sharp contrast to the Biden-Harris regime years, when all things woke projected from the White House lawn, including transgenders flaunting their fake body parts… 

… which ushered in a period of toxic wokeism and the dark age of weak men. History reminds us: strong men build nations, weak men destroy them. And America’s young men crave strength and health – not the Democratic Party’s hollow, rainbow-colored messaging of weakness.