France this week issued an arrest warrant for Syria’s ex-President Bashar al-Assad, who has been living in Russia under the protection of the Putin government, after he was overthrown on December 8 by invading Hayat Tahrir al-Sham forces under Jolani (and backed by external governments).

A French court additionally issued arrest warrants for seven former top Syrian officials. It charges that Assad committed war crimes as his forces allegedly bombed a press center in Homs in February 2012, which killed prominent American journalist Marie Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik, along with injuring others.

Her death drove US and world headlines, and came at a height of global coverage of Syria, and at a moment then President Barack Obama began to more openly call for regime change in Damascus.

Mainstream media claimed a ‘democratic uprising’ against Assad led by ‘moderate rebels’ – though many of the same outlets would years later be forced to admit that Al-Qaeda and ISIS-linked militants were at the forefront of the regime change efforts. Western and Gulf intelligence agencies were supporting and stoking jihadist factions as well.

An anti-Assad opposition outlet, Syrian Centre for Media and Freedom of Expression, apparently helped with the new legal action and warrant for Assad.

It said in a statement, “The judicial investigation clearly established that the attack on the informal press centre in Bab Amr was part of the Syrian regime’s explicit intention to target foreign journalists in order to limit media coverage of its crimes and force them to leave the city and the country.”

The death of Colvin and her colleagues occurred reportedly when a rocket hit the “informal press center” on February 22, 2012. This was alleged as a “targeted bombing” – however, some independent analysts questioned at the time what Assad would have to gain from going out of his way to deliberately kill a leading journalist who worked for London’s Sunday Times.

As for Assad, he’s believed to be residing with his family at an unknown location in Moscow. He’s not made a single statement since being ousted and sent into exile. One report says:

Six months after fleeing Syria following the fall of his regime, former President Bashar al-Assad is reportedly living in opulent exile in Moscow, sheltered from justice but under intense secrecy and likely surveillance by his Russian hosts.

According to an investigative report by France Info, Assad arrived in Russia on December 8, 2024, after being ousted by the Islamist rebel group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). The report places him in the ultra-luxurious “City of Capitals” complex in Moscow’s business district, though alternative sources point to the elite Rublyovka suburb, often referred to as “Russia’s Beverly Hills.”

There’s been much reporting and speculation over how his government fell so rapidly, with one prime theory involving an Israeli-backed (or other foreign intel agency) hack of his high military’s command’s communications systems.

Certainly the US-led sanctions, combined with American troop occupation of Syria’s oil and gas fields, greatly contributed and kept the population in misery. 

Via Remix News,

Polish President Karol Nawrocki ordered the European Union flag removed from his office, and now, other officials have followed his example, Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza reported.

The source cited by Gazeta Wyborcza stated that removing the EU flag from the office was one of the first decisions after Nawrocki moved into the Presidential Palace.

“No order was issued in this regard, but everyone considered it a signal to take down the flags wherever they were,” the source said.

According to the same report, Paweł Szefernaker, head of the President’s Office, also removed the EU flag from his office.

However, Gazeta Wyborcza may be making the issue bigger than it actually is, as the EU flag is still present outside the building, where it is supposed to be most visible.

The head of state’s spokesman, Rafał Leśkiewicz, told Gazeta Wyborcza that the EU flag “is present” in the Presidential Chancellery. He emphasized that three flags were present during Karol Nawrocki’s statements last week: the Polish flag, NATO, and the EU flag.

“The spokesman did not provide any response regarding the removal of the EU flag from the head of state’s office. Photographs from Andrzej Duda’s presidency show that the EU flag was there, standing next to the white-and-red one,” according to Gazeta Wyborcza.

The paper is not known to be friendly to Nawrocki. In a commentary published on the newspaper’s front page on Wednesday, Wojciech Maziarski writes that “the president is having EU flags displayed during some of his speeches, just for show, to mislead public opinion and lull the vigilance of those citizens who are terrified by the prospect of Poland’s strategic isolation.”

“Let’s not underestimate this gesture. It’s not a curiosity about the interior design of government offices, but a political declaration indicating the goals of the man who, by the will of a tiny majority of voters, became the leader of our country. The declaration is all the more important because it was not made public,” the columnist writes.

Notably, the columnist wrote that the democratic winner of the election only won by the “will of a tiny majority of voters.”

Read more here…

Authored by Prof. Ruel F. Pepa via GlobalResearch.ca,

At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin, leaders representing over half of humanity signaled the rise of a multipolar world order. As China, Russia, India, and Central Asia push new financial and trade systems, the West risks being left on the sidelines.

When the leaders of China, Russia, India, and several Central Asian states gathered in Tianjin last week for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit, the world should have paid far closer attention. Collectively, the countries represented at the table account for more than half of humanity, command immense reserves of natural resources, and increasingly drive a larger share of global GDP. This is not a peripheral coalition but a core pillar of the international system in the making.

Yet much of the Western press treated the gathering as little more than a diplomatic sideshow, overshadowed by domestic political debates or the latest updates from NATO. That was a mistake. What unfolded in Tianjin was not just another regional summit. It was the clearest indication yet that the unipolar world of U.S. primacy, which dominated the decades after the Cold War, is giving way to a new and contested multipolar order.

The symbolism was unmistakable. Beijing positioned the SCO as a platform for “equal partnership,” implicitly contrasting it with Western alliances built around hierarchy and U.S. leadership. Moscow emphasized strategic coordination in the face of sanctions and military pressure from the West. India, while carefully balancing its ties with Washington, underscored its role as a civilizational power charting an independent path. The Central Asian republics, long seen as geopolitical battlegrounds between outside powers, asserted their relevance as connectors of trade, energy, and security across Eurasia.

Beyond symbolism, the summit carried substance. Agreements on energy cooperation, cross-border infrastructure, digital technology, and security coordination point toward an increasingly institutionalized bloc. Taken together, they signal that the SCO is evolving from a loose forum into a framework capable of shaping the rules of the 21st-century world.

For policymakers in Washington and European capitals, the lesson is sobering. Ignoring the SCO or dismissing it as a talking shop risks overlooking the consolidation of an alternative power center that is steadily building legitimacy outside of Western institutions. For the rest of the world, particularly in the Global South, Tianjin served as a reminder that power is no longer concentrated in a single pole, but dispersed across multiple capitals with diverging visions of order.

The summit was therefore more than a diplomatic calendar entry. It was a milestone in the slow but unmistakable rebalancing of global power and a process that will define international politics for decades to come.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese leader Xi Jinping at the SCO Summit. (GODL-India)

A New Architecture Emerges

Chinese President Xi Jinping used the summit to press his vision of a world that renders Cold War mentalities a matter of the past. His remarks were not mere diplomatic pleasantries; they were a direct critique of the U.S.-led alliance system and its reliance on deterrence, sanctions, and bloc politics. Backed vocally by Vladimir Putin, Xi pledged to accelerate the creation of a multipolar order in which Western dominance would be checked by new centers of power across Eurasia and beyond [1].

What distinguished Tianjin from previous summits was that these calls were tied to concrete initiatives. Beijing unveiled a 10-year development strategy for the SCO, underwritten with billions of dollars in loans and grants earmarked for infrastructure, energy corridors, and digital connectivity projects [2]. This framework goes well beyond aspirational communiqués: it signals a deliberate attempt to institutionalize the SCO as both an economic and geopolitical force.

One of the boldest proposals on the table was the creation of a dedicated SCO development bank that poses an explicit challenge to the Bretton Woods institutions, particularly the IMF and World Bank. Such a body, if realized, would allow SCO members to finance projects without the conditionalities often imposed by Western lenders. It would also complement other Chinese-led initiatives such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Belt and Road Initiative, weaving them into a broader Eurasian financial ecosystem.

The implications are far-reaching. For decades, the global financial order has revolved around institutions headquartered in Washington and Brussels, shaping development trajectories in the Global South. By offering alternative sources of capital, Beijing and its partners are signaling that the monopoly of Western financial governance is coming to an end. The SCO’s proposed bank would not only fund railways, pipelines, and fiber-optic networks across Eurasia but also serve as a symbolic assertion of financial sovereignty.

The message from Tianjin was unambiguous: the institutions of the West will no longer go unchallenged. A parallel architecture emerging reflects the priorities of Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, and the capitals of Central Asia. It is not yet clear how cohesive or durable this architecture will prove, but its mere existence underscores that the world has moved beyond unipolarity. The battle is no longer over whether the West will be challenged, but over how rapidly alternative institutions can be consolidated, and how effectively they can deliver.

Central Asia at the Core

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is increasingly positioning Central Asia as the backbone of the emerging multipolar world. Far from being a peripheral region, the Central Asian republics are becoming the crossroads of Eurasian connectivity and influence. Trade corridors linking Shanghai to St. Petersburg are facilitating the movement of goods, capital, and people across thousands of kilometers. Energy pipelines crisscross Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and beyond, ensuring that the region’s vast natural resources flow to both Chinese and Russian markets while integrating it into a broader strategic network. Meanwhile, digital “Silk Roads” are introducing Chinese standards for 5G, artificial intelligence, and telecommunications infrastructure, further embedding Beijing’s technological footprint across the continent [3].

For decades, Central Asia was largely treated as a geopolitical periphery, a buffer zone caught between the lingering influence of Russia and the rising ambitions of China. Moscow maintained traditional security ties and economic leverage, while

Beijing cultivated trade and investment links primarily through infrastructure projects. Western powers, by contrast, engaged only sporadically, mostly through development aid or counterterrorism initiatives. The region’s strategic importance was recognized, but its potential as a hub of independent, multipolar influence remained unrealized.

That era is now coming to an end. With the SCO providing both institutional frameworks and concrete projects, Central Asia is transitioning from a passive periphery to an active strategic heartland of the new order. Its cities, railways, pipelines, and digital networks are not just local assets but the connective tissue of a Eurasian system designed to operate largely independently of Western-dominated institutions. By anchoring trade, energy, and technology in Central Asia, Beijing, Moscow, and their partners are effectively recasting the region as a central node in the global architecture of power.

The implications are profound. Central Asia is no longer a “backyard” for external powers; it is a linchpin of geopolitical strategy, economic integration, and technological standard-setting. As the SCO continues to consolidate its influence, the region’s rising prominence underscores that multipolarity is not merely a distant aspiration; it is being physically and institutionally constructed, rail line by rail line, pipeline by pipeline, and gigabyte by gigabyte.

The Electro-Yuan Gambit

Perhaps the boldest and most consequential development in Tianjin was Chinese President Xi Jinping’s call to expand the use of the yuan in energy settlements.

Analysts quickly dubbed the concept the “electro-yuan,” a system designed to link China’s digital currency with cross-border trade in oil, gas, and electricity. Unlike conventional trade settlements, which rely on correspondent banking in U.S. dollars, the electro-yuan would enable real-time, blockchain-enabled transactions directly between SCO member states, bypassing traditional financial intermediaries.

This is about far more than convenience or modernization. If widely adopted, the electro-yuan could significantly weaken the petrodollar system, which has underpinned U.S. financial dominance since the 1970s. The dollar’s centrality in global energy markets has long allowed Washington to exert extraordinary influence over international finance and foreign policy. By creating a credible alternative settlement system, Beijing and its SCO partners would undermine this leverage, diminishing the reach of dollar-based sanctions and reducing the United States’ ability to enforce geopolitical objectives through financial pressure.

The implications extend beyond energy. A robust electro-yuan network could accelerate the internationalization of China’s digital currency, the e-CNY, and provide a model for other nations seeking to hedge against the dollar. Coupled with SCO-led development projects and cross-border trade corridors, it represents a deliberate attempt to construct the “plumbing” of a parallel financial system that operates on terms favorable to Eurasian partners rather than Western institutions.

The ripple effects for global markets could be profound. If SCO countries begin pricing energy, commodities, and infrastructure projects in yuan rather than dollars, it could reduce demand for U.S. currency reserves, influence exchange rates, and reshape global investment flows. Commodity markets may see shifts in pricing benchmarks, particularly in oil and natural gas, as the electro-yuan provides a viable alternative to the dollar-based contracts that dominate today. For investors and multinational corporations, reliance on the dollar as the default currency for trade and finance may gradually diminish, introducing new risks and opportunities in hedging, capital allocation, and currency management.

For policymakers in Washington and Brussels, the message is stark: the rules of global finance may be shifting beneath their feet. A system that decouples trade and investment from the dollar would not only reduce the United States’ economic influence but also recalibrate global alliances, making financial sovereignty a tangible tool of statecraft for countries like China, Russia, and their SCO partners.

In short, the electro-yuan is more than a financial experiment but a strategic gambit, signaling that the SCO is not content merely to challenge Western hegemony rhetorically. It is building the infrastructure that could one day rival, and perhaps circumvent, the very foundations of U.S.-led global economic power, with consequences that extend to every corner of the global market.

India’s Pragmatic Hedge

The presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the Tianjin summit lent the gathering even greater weight and global significance. Historically cautious about Chinese-led initiatives, India has often approached regional multilateral frameworks with skepticism, wary of being overshadowed by Beijing or Moscow. Modi’s participation signaled a subtle but meaningful shift in India’s strategic calculus that acknowledged engagement, rather than isolation which is essential in a rapidly evolving multipolar world.

Image: Xi Jinping meeting with Narendra Modi (GODL-India)

At Tianjin, New Delhi agreed to concrete measures aimed at rebalancing trade with China, loosening visa restrictions, and enhancing connectivity initiatives within the SCO framework [4]. These steps demonstrate a willingness to separate economic pragmatism from ongoing territorial and border disputes, particularly in regions such as Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh. By compartmentalizing these issues, India is signaling that it can cooperate on economic and regional integration while maintaining its security concerns.

For India, engagement in the SCO is not a matter of siding with Beijing or Moscow. Instead, it reflects a strategic hedging approach: mitigating the risks posed by tariff threats from Washington, strengthening resilience against supply chain disruptions, and ensuring that it cannot be sidelined from emerging Eurasian trade and infrastructure networks. By participating actively, India secures a voice in shaping regional rules and norms rather than remaining a passive observer to a process that will define the geopolitical landscape for decades.

This approach aligns with India’s broader foreign policy of “strategic autonomy” wherein flexibility is maintained to navigate between competing power centers while advancing national interests. At the same time, India continues to cultivate robust partnerships through the Quad (with the U.S., Japan, and Australia) and its growing bilateral ties with Washington. In practice, this means India is simultaneously engaging with China-led institutions like the SCO while strengthening security and technological cooperation with the U.S.-led Indo-Pacific bloc. This dual-track strategy allows New Delhi to hedge against uncertainty on multiple fronts: it ensures access to Eurasian markets and energy corridors without sacrificing strategic alignment with Western partners.

The Tianjin summit thus reflects a uniquely complex Indian strategy: neither confrontation nor unconditional alignment, but calculated engagement, ensuring that India remains both relevant and resilient as global power structures shift. By balancing its SCO participation with Quad commitments, India positions itself as a pivotal actor capable of bridging competing spheres of influence, maximizing strategic flexibility in an era defined by multipolar competition.

The West on the Sidelines

The Tianjin summit was a warning shot: the world is moving on, with or without the West. While Washington and Brussels continue to wield significant economic, military, and diplomatic power, their ability to unilaterally dictate global terms is steadily eroding. For decades, Western institutions such as the IMF, World Bank, NATO, and dollar-based financial systems served as the primary levers of influence, shaping trade, development, and security outcomes across the globe.

Today, however, alternative frameworks like the SCO are demonstrating that other nations can pursue prosperity and security without relying solely on Western guidance.

Across Eurasia, countries are increasingly prioritizing strategic autonomy over rigid alignment. They seek options that provide economic resilience, infrastructure development, and energy security without the political strings often attached to Western loans or alliances. From pipelines in Central Asia to digital connectivity projects extending China’s 5G standards, the SCO is offering practical alternatives that simultaneously advance regional integration and multipolar governance.

The message is clear: the rules and institutions of the West are no longer the only game in town. Nations that fail to recognize this realignment risk being left behind not just economically, but politically and strategically. Participation in emerging trade corridors, digital networks, and financial mechanisms will increasingly define influence in Eurasia and beyond. Those who ignore these shifts may find their voice diminished in global decision-making and their access to vital markets and resources constrained.

Moreover, the SCO’s rise signals a broader psychological shift. For decades, Western primacy framed global debates and set expectations of power projection.

Tianjin revealed a growing willingness among Eurasian states to assert their own terms, challenge Western norms, and pursue partnerships that align with their strategic interests rather than defaulting to U.S. or European approval. The West can no longer assume that its preferences will automatically shape outcomes; influence must now be earned, negotiated, and, in some cases, competed for.

In short, the Tianjin summit underscores a central truth of the emerging era: multipolarity is not a distant possibility as it is taking shape here and now. To remain relevant, Western policymakers must move beyond complacency and recognize that a world with the SCO at its center demands engagement on terms that are increasingly pluralistic, flexible, and contested. Ignoring this reality is not just shortsighted but a strategic liability.

A Multipolar Future

What unfolded in Tianjin was not the birth of a new Cold War but the emergence of something far more complex and consequential: a multipolar future in which the West is no longer the sole arbiter of global norms, trade, and security. This is not merely a shift in power; it is a transformation of the architecture of international relations. Multiple centers of influence such as Beijing, Moscow, New Delhi, and the capitals of Central Asia are actively shaping the rules, institutions, and economic flows that will define the 21st century. The West, powerful as it remains, is increasingly one participant among many rather than the default decision-maker.

The unipolar era of American dominance, which followed the Cold War, had its run, dictating the terms of finance, trade, and security for decades. The Tianjin summit, however, signaled that the next chapter will be written differently. The SCO is not simply a forum for dialogue; it is a deliberate effort to institutionalize an alternative framework for regional and global governance, encompassing trade, energy, technology, and finance. From the expansion of the yuan in energy settlements to infrastructure corridors across Central Asia, the SCO is constructing the material and institutional foundations of a multipolar order that can operate independently of Western-led institutions.

This new reality poses a strategic test for the West. Can Washington and Brussels adapt to a world in which their primacy is no longer assumed, and influence must be negotiated rather than imposed? Or will they risk being relegated to the sidelines, observing as new power centers define the economic rules, geopolitical alignments, and technological standards that will shape global affairs for decades to come?

Crucially, multipolarity is not zero-sum since it does not necessarily mean confrontation, but it does demand recognition that influence, leverage, and legitimacy are now dispersed. States and institutions that cling to a unipolar mindset may find themselves increasingly marginalized, while those capable of engaging with multiple power centers, hedging risks, and participating in alternative frameworks will thrive.

Tianjin was therefore more than a summit; it was a glimpse of the emerging world order in motion. The SCO, with its blend of economic initiatives, security coordination, and financial innovation, illustrates that the 21st century will be defined by complexity, interdependence, and competition among multiple poles of power. The central question now is whether the West will acknowledge and adapt to this new reality or allow others to shape the future on their own terms.

Welcome to the Eurasia Century. pic.twitter.com/lcotVl0hZY

— Pepe Escobar (@RealPepeEscobar) September 3, 2025

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Israel has once again given Hamas a tough ultimatum – release all the hostages and surrender or prepared to see Gaza City leveled – according to a new Thursday Times of Israel headline.

This came after Hamas declared its willingness to release all the hostages, based on a ceasefire proposal the group said it accepted two weeks ago. Hamas has said it will agree “to enter into a comprehensive deal in which all enemy prisoners held by the resistance will be freed in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners held by the occupation.”

However, it made demands which Israel has consistently rejected – that all Israeli troops withdraw from the Gaza Strip, and that all border crossings be immediately opened for the arrival of aid.

Hamas further said it is ready to form “an independent national administration of technocrats” to run Gaza. But the Netanyahu government has quickly shot back that all hostages must be freed at once, and the group must disarm, and agree that it will no longer govern. Israel has said it will not accept Palestinian Authority governance either.

“This is more spin by Hamas, containing nothing new,” Netanyahu’s office said. This means the Gaza City offensive will more than likely proceed and continue, given Hamas is not going to lay down its arms, which they will see as certain defeat, death or imprisonment. 

Netanyahu has called for “the establishment of an alternative civilian administration that does not indoctrinate for terror, does not dispatch terror, and does not threaten Israel.”

Meanwhile, even ahead of plans to take over the strip’s largest city, Israeli’s military had declared it controls about 40% of Gaza City.

It has been declared a combat zone, with civilians ordered out – particularly areas designated highly dangerous “red zones”.

This week, Axios’ global affairs correspondent Barak Ravid cited Israeli officials who say that the White House is ready to greenlight a Netanyahu-ordered seizure of West Bank Palestinian territory.

“Rubio has signaled to Israeli officials in private meetings that he does not oppose Israel’s West Bank annexations and that the Trump administration will not stand in the way,” wrote Ravid.

IDF footage purporting to show tunnels being detonated in the Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza City…

Explosion of a Hamas terror tunnel located in the Zaytoun neighborhood of Gaza City.

Big bada boom pic.twitter.com/xDzuimx3lr

— Cheryl E 🇮🇱🎗️ (@CherylWroteIt) September 4, 2025

Still, Trump has cautioned that even though Israel may be winning the war, it is losing global opinion. Despite such statements, the White House hasn’t done much to bring serious pressure to bear on Tel Aviv.

How long does it take for conventional wisdom to make a 180 degree U-turn? In the case of anything Trump related, it’s just under 6 months.

It was in early April, just after Liberation Day’s reciprocal tariffs were announced, that US bond markets suddenly cratered, sparking a collapse in hundreds of billions of basis trades, and triggered fears of a global economic shock. That’s when tariffs were widely seen as bad and anyone who dared to say it’s never that black or white – such as this website – were blasted as economic illiterates. Well, fast forward to today when quietly conventional wisdom has been turned on its head and the mere possibility of tariffs getting pulled is now seen as one of the biggest threats to the stability of the bond market!

That’s right: if the Financial Times is to be believed – and it is, since it loathes Trump with a passion and would never say anything even remotely complementary if it could avoid it – Trump’s tariffs are now a key factor keeping Treasury investors on board (the same tariffs that were widely blamed for the relentless selling back in April). According to the paper, the tariff revenues – which so many of the establishment economists never even considered in April – are now seen as a crucial income stream that offsets the costs of the Big Beautiful Bill, and  investors are now counting on hundreds of billions of dollars raised by the remaining tariffs to offset Trump’s tax cuts and keep a lid on US borrowing.

“The only way I can see for the US government to reduce its outstanding debt in the near term is to use the tariff revenue,” said Andy Brenner, head of international fixed income at NatAlliance Securities, citing also revenues from chipmakers’ China sales. “If all of the sudden the tariff revenue will not be there, that is a problem.”

Not only that, but as we noted two weeks ago, both S&P and Fitch recently conceded that tariff revenues for the US federal government were one factor that prevented them from downgrading the sovereign. 

The Congressional Budget Office last month forecast Trump’s tariffs would boost US government revenues by $4tn over the coming decade. That would help pay for tax cuts in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is projected to increase borrowing by $4.1tn over the same period.

The shift in market sentiment comes after months of turmoil in Trump’s economic strategy, including his trade war with trading partners such as China and his attacks on the US Federal Reserve.

Indeed, the appeals court ruling – which overturns Trump’s tariffs – was the catalyst behind the US Treasury bond sell-off on Tuesday and Wednesday, analysts said, as investors worried that reduced tariff revenues would lead to a greater glut of Treasury issuance. 

Thierry Wizman, a global rates strategist at Macquarie Group, said: “If the bulk of Trump’s tariff programme is nullified by the courts some analysts will cheer, inflation will subside, growth may improve, and the Fed may be more inclined to ease monetary policy. But if the focus is on debt and deficits at that time, the bond market may riot.”

He added: “The risk that tariffs go away but the [One Big Beautiful Bill Act] stays may become the dominant risk for [US Treasuries] over the next few weeks.”

Robert Tipp, head of global bonds at PGIM Fixed Income, said there was “a hope that tariff revenue can help control the budget deficit”.

To be sure, even with tariff revenues, investors warn about the daunting scale of the US government’s borrowing needs.

Des Lawrence, senior investment strategist at State Street Investment Management, said if the tariffs “were put on pause, it deprives Uncle Sam of a revenue source”. But the “bigger negative picture” is the sheer scale of government spending, he said. Without tariff revenue, the CBO expects US debt relative to GDP to surpass its second world war peak by 2029.

“It’s helpful in plugging a gap, but there’s still a big issue in America spending much more than it’s receiving,” Lawrence said, and he too is right as we showed a few weeks ago when we demonstrated that despite record tariff revenue, the US budget deficit hit a whopping $291bn in July, the second highest deficit for the month on record.

And now the fate of the US bond market is in the hands of a handful of supreme court justices, whose decisions are never taken on the merits of the underlying argument but are purely and unapologetically political. Last week, the Court of Appeals ruled against the Liberation Day tariffs, arguing that the emergency powers law did not give the US president the legal authority to impose these tariffs. And last evening, the Trump administration appealed this decision before the Supreme Court, and the enforcement of the earlier ruling has been delayed until the Supreme Court can review the case. So, pending the Supreme Court decision, tariffs remain in effect.

But if Trump loses this appeal, that key source of revenue would quickly dry out. Undoubtedly the administration will already have alternatives up its sleeve –with sectoral tariffs a key candidate– but it would unleash a new wave of uncertainty that could sap confidence. No wonder Trump has said that if the Supreme Court does not overturn the Appeal court decision, the consequences would be catastrophic for the US: he is, after all, correct. 

Authored by Jacob Burg via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced on Sept. 3 that it was revoking the 2021 designation of temporary protected status for Venezuelan nationals in the United States.

That status, which was previously set to expire on Sept. 10, will now be terminated 60 days after that date when the department publishes its notice to the Federal Register. The department indicated that it no longer believes Venezuelan nationals met the statutory requirements for temporary protected status.

“Given Venezuela’s substantial role in driving irregular migration and the clear magnet effect created by Temporary Protected Status, maintaining or expanding TPS for Venezuelan nationals directly undermines the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure our southern border and manage migration effectively,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesman Matthew Tragesser said in a statement.

“Weighing public safety, national security, migration factors, immigration policy, economic considerations, and foreign policy, it’s clear that allowing Venezuelan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is not in America’s best interest.”

Temporary protected status (TPS) is a program that gives people from certain countries the ability to stay in the United States legally for a period of time. The head of the Department of Homeland Security creates the program if temporary and extraordinary conditions prevent the migrants from returning to their home countries safely.

President Joe Biden, President Donald Trump’s predecessor, established two designations of temporary protected status for Venezuelan nationals residing in the United States. The first, which was unveiled in 2021, was affected by Wednesday’s revocation. The second, which Biden announced in 2023 and was set to expire in April before it was extended for 18 months, was terminated by the Trump administration earlier this year.

At the time, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem determined that “it is contrary to the national interest to permit the covered Venezuelan nationals to remain temporarily in the United States.”

Biden’s Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had granted temporary protected status to roughly 348,202 Venezuelan nationals, deeming that there were “extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent individuals from safely returning.”

In May, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a lower court’s order to prevent the Trump administration from removing the temporary legal protections for Venezuelans so that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit could weigh in on the issue.

Then, the federal appeals court last week upheld the original order that stopped the administration from moving forward with the policy that would make it easier to deport Venezuelan nationals.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, who issued the original order, said at the time that ending the program “for reasons of national security” was not backed by evidence.

“Venezuelan TPS holders have lower rates of criminality than the general population,” he said.

“Generalization of criminality to the Venezuelan TPS population as a whole is baseless and smacks of racism predicated on generalized false stereotypes.”

On Wednesday, the Homeland Security Department said Noem had moved to end the 2021 designation of temporary protected status for Venezuelans because keeping the program “is contrary to the national interest.”

“Venezuelan nationals leaving the United States are encouraged to use the U.S. Customs and Border Protection CBP Home app to report their departure from the United States and take advantage of a safe, secure way to self-deport that includes a complimentary plane ticket, a $1,000 exit bonus, and potential future opportunities for legal immigration,” the agency wrote in a news release.

The Pentagon is exploring the possibility of leasing sections of Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California to commercial customers, and potentially using the proceeds to bankroll President Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense scheme, NBC News was first to report on Wednesday, citing a current DOD official, as well as a former one. 

Positioned between Los Angeles and San Diego, Camp Pendleton boasts more than 125,000 acres of land and 17 miles of Pacific coastline, with Interstate 5 conveniently traversing it near the coastline. The topography is diverse, ranging from the seafront to mountainous terrain. As you’d imagine, it’s the largest undeveloped coastline expanse in all of Southern California.

Navy Secretary John Phelan toured the base last week via helicopter, looking at various sections of the base that have been preliminarily identified as potential revenue-drivers, NBC’s sources said. A Phelan spokeswoman confirmed that the trip included “initial conversations about possible commercial leasing opportunities by DoD. These opportunities are being evaluated to maximize value and taxpayer dollars while maintaining mission readiness and security. No decisions have been made and further discussions are needed,” said Lt. Cmdr. Courtney Williams. 

Many elements of the proposition are unclear, to include what type of usages are envisioned, how much land would be available, or how long any leases would be. As opposed to carving off one major section of Camp Pendleton, it’s likely that multiple, separate tracts around the installation would be offered for lease, the officials told NBC. They emphasized that the conversion of parts of Camp Pendleton to commercial use would not diminish its military use or Marine Corps readiness. 

Among many other units, Camp Pendleton is the home of the 1 Marine Expeditionary Force, which the Corps touts as its “largest warfighting Marine Air-Ground Task Force.” Ten of the installation’s service members — nine Marines and a sailor — were among the 13 killed in the 2021 suicide bombing of the Kabul airport, amid the terribly-executed if long-overdue withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan. It also has many military schools, including Assault Amphibian School. There are typically 70,000 people on the installation on any given day. 

Proceeds of the commercial leases may be directed to Trump’s Golden Dome, his vision of an American missile defense shield inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome — but far exceeding it in both complexity and scale. The multi-faceted defense scheme would likely include ships, jets and surface-to-air components, with the potential for space-based interceptors as well.  

Last month, new details of Golden Dome began to emerge, based on a Reuters review of a U.S. government slide presentation on the project, titled “Go Fast, Think Big!”, which was presented to 3,000 defense contractors. According to the slides, the Golden Dome’s missile defense shield architecture calls for:

• Space layer: satellites for missile warning, tracking, and boost-phase interception.

• Upper layer: Next Generation Interceptors (NGI), THAAD, and Aegis systems — with a new missile field likely in the Midwest.

• Under layer: Patriot systems, new radars, and a common launcher for current and future interceptors.

The Big Beautiful Bill signed into law on July 4 includes $25 billion to start developing Golden Dome, and the Trump administration claims the whole thing will cost $175 billion. Having watched the history of US weapons development, we’ll take the over. 

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,

The U.S. military wants artificial intelligence to do what human propagandists cannot: create and spread influence campaigns at internet speed while systematically suppressing opposition voices abroad, according to internal Pentagon documents obtained by The Intercept.

The classified wishlist reveals SOCOM’s ambition to deploy “agentic AI or multi-LLM agent systems” that can “influence foreign target audiences” and “suppress dissenting arguments” with minimal human oversight. The military branch seeks contractors who can provide automated systems that operate at unprecedented scale and speed.

“The information environment moves too fast for military remembers [sic] to adequately engage and influence an audience on the internet,” the document said.

“Having a program built to support our objectives can enable us to control narratives and influence audiences in real time.”

As reported by The Intercept, the proposed AI systems would extend far beyond simple content generation. SOCOM envisions technology that can “scrape the information environment, analyze the situation and respond with messages that are in line with MISO objectives.” More controversially, the systems would “suppress dissenting arguments” and “access profiles, networks, and systems of individuals or groups that are attempting to counter or discredit our messages.”

The Pentagon plans to use these capabilities for comprehensive social manipulation, creating “comprehensive models of entire societies to enable MISO planners to use these models to experiment or test various multiple scenarios.”

The systems would generate targeted messaging designed to “influence that specific individual or group” based on gathered intelligence.

SOCOM spokesperson Dan Lessard reportedly defended the initiative, declaring that “all AI-enabled capabilities are developed and employed under the Department of Defense’s Responsible AI framework, which ensures accountability and transparency by requiring human oversight and decision-making.”

The Pentagon’s move comes as adversaries deploy similar technology. Chinese firm GoLaxy has developed AI systems that can “reshape and influence public opinion on behalf of the Chinese government,” according to recent reporting by The New York Times. The company has “undertaken influence campaigns in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and collected data on members of Congress and other influential Americans.”

However, experts question whether AI-generated propaganda proves effective. Emerson Brooking of the Atlantic Council noted that “Russia has been using AI programs to automate its influence operations. The program is not very good.” He warned that “AI tends to make these campaigns stupider, not more effective.”

The Pentagon has previously conducted covert influence operations with mixed results.

In 2022, researchers exposed a network of social media accounts operated by U.S. Central Command that pushed anti-Russian and Iranian messaging but failed to gain traction, becoming what Brooking called “an embarrassment for the Pentagon.”

Critics worry about the broader implications of automated propaganda systems. Heidy Khlaaf, former OpenAI safety engineer, cautioned that “framing the use of generative and agentic AI as merely a mitigation to adversaries’ use is a misrepresentation of this technology, as offensive and defensive uses are really two sides of the same coin.”

Update (1520ET): Well that was actually pretty interesting. As Democrat Senators read prepared zingers to try and corner RFK Jr. over vaccines and other malarkey, Kennedy hit back with several very specific haymakers during the three-hour session – calling the Democratic lawmakers ‘liars’ – and even pointing out the Elizabeth Warren has taken nearly a million dollars from pharmaceutical companies. 

Defiant on CDC Firings

At the center of Thursday’s hearing was Kennedy’s surprise decision last week to fire CDC Director Susan Monarez, just a month after she took the job. The move plunged the agency into turmoil, prompting several senior officials to resign.

Kennedy accused Monarez of lying in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published the same morning, in which she claimed she was removed for refusing to “rubber stamp” vaccine recommendations from Kennedy’s advisory committee.

“We are the sickest country in the world, that’s why we have to fire people at CDC,” Kennedy said.

🚨 BOOM!!!!!

WYDEN: Former CDC Dir. Susan Monarez said you told her, ‘Just go along with vaccine recommendations even if they don’t match with science.’ You calling her a LIAR?

RFK: I did not say that to her.

WYDEN: She’s lying?

RFK: Yes.

🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/HduxcSzULq

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 4, 2025

Kennedy also defended his June purge of 17 members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, known as ACIP, framing the move as an effort to “depoliticize” the committee. “I didn’t politicize ACIP, I depoliticized it,” he insisted.

Kennedy also said that that leading medical organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, were compromised because they accept pharmaceutical industry funding. That prompted an exasperated retort from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT):

“In your eyes, everybody but you is corrupt.”

“Everybody is corrupt but you?”

Sen. Bernie Sanders took aim at RFK Jr.’s statements casting doubt on the integrity of major medical organizations. Kennedy argued they’ve been corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry. https://t.co/0sWdbbdgCM pic.twitter.com/5iDroGiMMm

— ABC News (@ABC) September 4, 2025

Pocahontas Down

During one fiery exchange with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Kennedy said ” know you’ve taken $855K from PHARMA COMPANIES, SENATOR!” 

🔥WOAH: Secretary Kennedy just put Elizabeth Warren’s Big Pharma bucks on FULL, PUBLIC DISPLAY!

“I know you’ve taken $855,000 from pharmaceutical companies, Senator!”

That’s gotta hurt. pic.twitter.com/7m1HOVkd2w

— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 4, 2025

Warning Shot From GOP Leadership

The most striking moment came when Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, warned that Kennedy’s policies risk undermining decades of medical progress. Barrasso, who rarely breaks from his party’s leadership, signaled growing unease within the GOP about Kennedy’s sweeping changes.

“I’ve grown deeply concerned,” Barrasso said, citing both the recent CDC director firing and measles outbreaks. “There are real concerns that safe, proven vaccines like measles, Hepatitis B, and others could be in jeopardy, and that would put Americans at risk and reverse decades of progress.”

Sen. John Barrasso: “I support vaccines. I’m a doctor. Vaccines work. Secretary Kennedy, in your confirmation hearing you promised to uphold the highest standard for vaccines. Since then, I’ve grown deeply concerned.” pic.twitter.com/a6j4m4rJi5

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) September 4, 2025

Trump’s Role Complicates GOP Strategy

Some Republican senators also sought to drive a wedge between Kennedy and President Trump, highlighting the former president’s past praise of Operation Warp Speed – the 2020 initiative to accelerate vaccine development.

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said Trump deserved a Nobel Prize for ramping up vaccine production and criticized Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in federal grants for new mRNA vaccine research.

“Canceling those contracts seems like a commentary upon what the president did in Operation Warp Speed,” Cassidy said.

He warned that Kennedy’s limits on federal vaccine funding are already causing confusion for consumers, noting reports of pharmacies unable to provide COVID-19 boosters due to shifting Health and Human Services recommendations.

“I would say effectively we’re denying people the vaccine,” Cassidy said.

Bill Cassidy’s line of questioning was clever — he pressed Kennedy on how he can praise Trump for Operation Warp Speed while at the same time denigrating vaccines.

Here’s the entire exchange. pic.twitter.com/zNatP0m6uy

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 4, 2025

Looking Ahead: CDC Vaccine Recommendations

Several senators pressed Kennedy on upcoming decisions by the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, amid fears that broader vaccine recommendations for childhood diseases could be scaled back.

Kennedy offered few details but sought to reassure lawmakers on one point:

“I do not anticipate a change in measles vaccine recommendations,” he said.

Still, uncertainty lingers over how far Kennedy intends to take his overhaul of federal vaccine policy — and how much support he retains within his own party.

*  *  *

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is testifying before the Senate today on the Trump administration’s health agenda – where he’s expected to face questions over a spate of firings and other leadership changes at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Of note, RFK Jr. moved to fire former CDC Director Susan Monarez, while several top leaders at the agency resigned in protest. 

Watch Live:

The rot within the CDC goes back decades, however the most glaring example of their incompetence – or worse, was on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic – when the agency knew as early as October of 2020 that the median Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid was a tiny 0.23% (meaning 99.8% of the population was not under threat). 

Instead of focusing their response on those actually at risk – the elderly and the frail, the CDC joined with Democrats to fear monger over “mass deaths in the streets”.

Now, as Kennedy cleans house, the left is losing their minds.

Meanwhile, a CDC advisory committee has launched a review of COVID-19 vaccines, and will review data on the shots related to their safety, effectiveness, and immunogenicity, according to an Aug. 20 document, which was released by the CDC.

Members also plan to look at gaps in existing knowledge “relating to bio distribution, pharmacokinetics, and persistence of the spike protein, mRNA, and lipid nanoparticles to inform immunization recommendations,” the document states.

Studies have found that the spike protein and mRNA in the vaccines persist for some time. Lipid nanoparticles are used to deliver the mRNA.

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Stephen Miran, President Donald Trump’s nominee to temporarily serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, committed to preserving the central bank’s independence in testy exchanges with senators.

Trump announced his nomination of Miran, the current head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, early last month to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler.

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee for his confirmation hearing, Miran expressed the necessity for monetary policy independence as lawmakers centered their questions on the Federal Reserve’s autonomy.

“In my view, the most important job of the central bank is to prevent depressions and hyperinflations. Independence of monetary policy is a critical element for its success,” he said in his opening remarks on Sept. 4.

“I will act independently as the Federal Reserve always does,” Miran told senators, adding that he welcomes listening to a diverse array of opinions “to challenge my own views and interrogate them.”

Democratic senators, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), were unconvinced, stating that Miran would serve as a proxy for the president and erode Fed independence.

Accentuating her point, Warren asked Miran whether he thought Trump had lost the 2020 presidential election and if he believed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July jobs numbers had been manipulated.

Miran replied that President Joe Biden “was certified by Congress” and that the federal agency has struggled with deteriorating data quality.

“Dr. Miran, you have made clear that you will do or say whatever Donald Trump wants you to do or say,” Warren, the top Democrat on the committee, said.

“That may work in a political position, but it takes an axe to Fed independence, and will make life far more expensive for Americans.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) questioned whether administration officials, “formally or informally,” had asked Miran to vote to lower interest rates.

“No,” Miran answered.

Miran is likely to be confirmed as Republicans control the Senate Banking Committee and hold 53 seats in the upper chamber. All Senate GOP lawmakers voted to confirm Miran, who served in the president’s first term, to chair the president’s key economic advisory group.

Still, many of them encouraged Miran to stay committed to doing what he thinks is right rather than following the wishes of politicians.

“There’s nothing wrong with politicians in Washington offering their opinions. You can’t stop them,“ Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told Miran.

”But we need a monetary plan that was put together by something other than vodka and darts, and that’s what we have the Federal Reserve for.”

His ascent to the Fed Board could happen before the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets on Sept. 16 and 17. Investors overwhelmingly anticipate that monetary policymakers will vote to lower interest rates by a quarter point for the first time since December. The institution has been on hold this year to determine the potential effects of Trump’s sweeping global tariff plans.

If confirmed, Miran would serve on the Fed Board only until Jan. 31, 2026. Trump could then renominate Miran to complete a full 14-year term or select another individual for the position.

Miran revealed that he would only be taking an unpaid leave of absence from the White House because his term would only last four months. He noted that he would resign if nominated for a longer term.

This sparked further scrutiny from Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who called it “ridiculous.”

“You are going to be technically an employee of the president of the United States, but an independent member of the board of the Federal Reserve,” Reed said.