Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ ) said on Sept. 16 that it is suing Oregon and Maine for failing to provide information on how their election offices maintain valid voter registration rolls.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement that both states had declined to cooperate with the department’s requests for unredacted access to voter rolls and maintenance procedures, despite having allegedly given a private organization access to “identical information.”

“States simply cannot pick and choose which federal laws they will comply with, including our voting laws, which ensure that all American citizens have equal access to the ballot in federal elections,” Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon said.

“American citizens have a right to feel confident in the integrity of our electoral process, and the refusal of certain states to protect their citizens against vote dilution will result in legal consequences.”

States are granted broad discretion over how they conduct both state and federal elections. However, there are some federal laws, such as the Voting Rights Act, the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), and laws setting a uniform date for federal elections, that regulate the process and that states are required to adhere to when conducting elections.

Over the past several months, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has sent requests for voter registration-related information to at least 24 states, including requesting a complete list of all registered voters from at least 22 states.

In the lawsuit, the DOJ accused the two states and their secretaries of state of violating the NVRA, the Help America Vote Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 in their refusal to share information regarding election oversight.

The department said that Oregon and its secretary of state, Tobias Read, are “refusing to produce the current unredacted electronic copy of the state’s voter registration list, to provide information on the state’s voter list maintenance program, and to disclose registration information for any ineligible voters.”

It accused Maine and its secretary of state, Shenna Bellows, of “refusing to provide data regarding the removal of ineligible individuals and to produce an unredacted, computerized state voter registration list.”

Bellows, a Democrat, criticized the legal action.

“It is absurd that the Department of Justice is targeting our state when Republican and Democratic secretaries all across the country are fighting back against this federal abuse of power just like we are,” she said in a statement. “I stand by the integrity and professionalism of Maine’s dedicated state election officials.”

She also accused the DOJ of lying with its claim that her office shared the information it was requesting with a private organization.

Read, also a Democrat, said his office is committed to protecting voter privacy from the federal attempt at oversight.

“If the President wants to use the DOJ to go after his political opponents and undermine our elections, I look forward to seeing them in court,” Read said in a statement.

“I stand by my oath to the people of Oregon, and I will protect their rights and privacy.”

Neither of the two state offices responded to a request for comment by publication time.

The lawsuit against Maine comes after the Republican National Committee filed a complaint last week with the Justice Department alleging that Bellows refused to provide adequate information about how the state maintains its voter rolls.

Earlier this month, state officials in North Carolina acknowledged in a settlement with the DOJ that they had not collected from some voters a driver’s license number or another identifying number, as required by the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

Officials said they would remedy this by collecting the information required under federal law from registered voters.

Trump said on Aug. 30 that he would sign an executive order that would require a voter ID to vote.

The Trump administration filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board while a lawsuit plays out in lower court over Cook’s ouster by President Trump last month. 

The request comes after a federal appeals court in Washington DC rejected the administration’s attempt to remove an order blocking Cook’s removal in a 2-1 decision the night before the Fed’s meeting earlier this week.

“This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote  the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General John Sauer. 

According to court filings, the Trump administration maintains that Cook committed mortgage fraud based on evidence provided by Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte – which showed that Cook claimed two properties as her primary residence within weeks of each other. 

On Aug. 25, Trump announced that he was firing Cook from the seven-member Fed Board. Cook sued in response, resulting in a federal district court on Sept. 9 barring her removal while the suit plays out – which the appeals court upheld.

Sauer says that the Supreme Court, for various reasons, should stay the district court judge’s preliminary injunction reinstating Cook to the Fed, claiming that the DOJ is likely to prevail in the lawsuit “because Cook lacks a Fifth Amendment property interest in her continued service as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System,” and her job is not protected by due process considerations.

Sauer also disputed the judge’s alternative finding that Cook’s firing “for cause” was invalid because the alleged conduct occurred before she was appointed to the Fed.

“The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” he wrote, adding “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination of ‘some cause relating to the conduct, ability, fitness, or competence of the officer’ is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.”

“Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence,” Sauer continued. “Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky.”

“When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s ‘deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter’ renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates ‘the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” 

Sauer also says that the district court judge “lacked authority to order reinstatement as an equitable remedy for the removal of an officer of the United States, as we have discussed in several recent stay applications.”

Cook has denied wrongdoing, and has argued that unproven allegations are not sufficient grounds for removing the Biden appointee. 

Authored by Melanie Sun via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court on Sept. 17 declined to lift a preliminary injunction blocking a plan by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to overhaul the department in line with the Trump administration’s policy priorities.

Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in May challenging Kennedy’s restructuring of HHS, including layoffs and the reorganization of several agencies, arguing that the changes violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the states could not show they would be immediately harmed if the injunction were lifted pending an appeal. The panel noted that the lower court relied on hundreds of pages of testimony from state officials.

“The government does not explain how the district court clearly erred in crediting these uncontroverted facts,” the court said in an unsigned order.

Kennedy announced on March 27 that his department would “streamline the functions” of its federal workforce by consolidating subagencies, reducing the number of regional offices, and implementing a reduction-in-force plan that would impact 10,000 HHS employees. They were all offered buy-out options to incentivize them to quit ahead of the announced job cuts.

The restructuring plan looked to streamline 28 divisions into 15, and close half of the department’s 10 regional offices. Four HHS sub-agencies were named in the restructuring: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Head Start, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

Attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rhode Island challenging the restructuring plan. Plaintiffs said the executive action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the scope of executive authority, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine and appropriations clause.

They also pointed to potential harms their states would face if the executive action were allowed to proceed, saying their agencies would be unable to conduct sufficient laboratory testing or process critical health data needed to track infectious diseases and improve maternal and infant health outcomes. They added that the reforms would create financial strain, forcing the states to cover funding gaps left by the pullback in federal resources.

The Trump administration had argued that the states’ case rested on speculation about what harms they would suffer as a result of changes to department services, and that any challenges to the firings had to be pursued by the federal employees themselves before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

In July, the District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs.

U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled that the administration “does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress.”

Her injunction ordered the HHS to freeze its reduction-in-force and restructuring plans at the four agencies.

On Aug. 12, the government filed to temporarily lift the injunction, pending court proceedings.

In its appeal, the HHS said that the lower court ruling should be set aside as the lawsuit was functionally identical to two earlier cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court lifted orders requiring it to reinstate employees let go en masse at other agencies by the administration.

The Epoch Times contacted the HHS and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which is spearheading the lawsuit, for comment but received no response by publication time.

HHS’s mandate is to “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services,” according to its website.

Novo Nordisk shares jumped the most in 18 months in Copenhagen trading on Thursday after its diabetes wonder drug Ozempic beat Eli Lilly’s older drug Trulicity in a real-world survey of 60,000 Medicare patients with diabetes and heart disease. 

The new study was revealed at the European Association for the Study of Diabetes conference in Vienna earlier today. It showed that Medicare patients who took Ozempic were 23% less likely to suffer heart attacks, strokes, or death compared with those on Trulicity. 

Shares of Novo Nordisk in Copenhagen surged 7% on the announcement of the study, but remain down 36.5% year-to-date and more than 61.5% below the June 2024 peak of DKK 1,000. For Goldman analysts like Novo superbull James Quigley, the question is whether the 37% rebound since early August marks an actual bottom, or just another dead cat bounce.

Quigley penned a note to clients about the key takeaways from the new study presented at the EASD conference:

Novo hosted an R&D investor event in conjunction with the EASD conference in Vienna.

Our key takeaways were:

1. Amycretin is primarily an obesity drug not a diabetes drug and base case is a similar efficacy, tolerability and safety as CagriSema but with one API, with an upside case being a better profile than CagriSema,

2. Cagrilintide monotherapy trials will not use forced titration, could test higher doses, and will generate data in more subpopulations. On the need for a potential CVOT, the company said it is too early to say.

3. EVOKE/EVOKE+ is powered for 20% slowing in cognitive decline but can detect low teens % based on powering.

The company commented any statistically significant result would be seen as meaningful based on clinician feedback. Overall, our conversations with management as well as KOL commentary at the EASD conference further highlights to us that in order to be successful in obesity, companies will need for a broad pipeline supported by deep databases behind each asset, as obesity will not be a one size fits all market, particularly with new entrants on the horizon.

Related:

• Goldman, UBS React To Novo Nordisk Axing 9,000 Jobs, Slashing Guidance Amid GLP-1 Headwinds

• Novo Shares Gain As Wegovy Shows Big Edge Over Lilly’s Tirzepatide In Heart Study

ZeroHedge Pro Subs can read the full note here, along with more details on Quigley’s 12-month price target.

Authored by Nancy Lubale via CoinTelegraph.com,

The amount of Ether in the queue waiting to be unstaked has surged to its highest level, as investors may be looking to cash in on yearly profits.

Ether’s exit queue hits record $12B ETH

Ethereum’s exit queue surpassed 2.6 million ETH worth $12 billion last week, with a 44-day wait time.

This marked the largest amount of Ether ever set for withdrawal by the network’s validators, who are responsible for adding new blocks and verifying transactions in proposed blocks, playing a vital role in securing the Ethereum blockchain.

Data from ValidatorQueue noted that the number of active validators was above 1.05 million, with 29.4% of the total ETH supply staked, i.e., around 35.6 million ETH. 

“Ethereum staking exit queue goes parabolic,” macro analyst MartyPary commented on the largest validator exodus in crypto history.  

Number of Ether queued for exit. Source: Validator Queue

While this does not mean that all the validators are looking to sell their holdings, a significant portion of the over $12 billion may be offloaded to lock in profits, notably as the Ether price has risen 97% over the past 12 months.

“The Ethereum exit queue is at a record high, with huge amounts of $ETH now waiting to exit staking,” said crypto YouTuber Lark Davis in an X post, adding:

“Heavy sell pressure incoming.”

Meanwhile, the Ethereum staking entry queue reached its lowest level in four weeks, adding to fears that a surge in the exit queue could lead to a major sell-off.

More than 512,755 ETH, worth around $2.3 billion, were waiting to be staked at the time of writing, down from 959,717 ETH on Sept. 5, indicating a slowdown in demand for staking Ether.

Strong institutional demand allays ETF sell-off fears

Increasing accumulation and buying strength from Ether treasury companies and spot ETH exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are absorbing much of the selling pressure. 

Data from strategicethreserve.xyz highlights that collective holdings of strategic reserves and ETFs have surged 116% since July 1, climbing to 11,762,594 ETH from 5,445,458 ETH.

The sharp increase underscores a swift influx of Ether supply into the hands of major institutional and corporate players.

Ether treasuries and ETF holdings reserve. Source: strategicethreserve.xyz

The majority of these entities have or will stake the asset for additional yields for their strategies, which may boost the entry queue in the coming weeks.

Another bullish narrative is tied to the potential launch of ETH staking ETFs. This implies that some investors may be freeing up liquidity to re-enter these products later, effectively reshuffling their exposure without exiting the ETH market.

While the SEC’s final deadline for approval is set for April 2026, popular analyst Axel Bitblaze said the green light could come much sooner, possibly as early as October 2025.

“I know we have been waiting for the ETH ETFs approval, but now it’s only a matter of time,” the analyst wrote in a Tuesday X post, adding:

“BlackRock’s ETH staking approval next deadline is in October, and I think the approval will most likely happen.”

Capital continued to flow into crypto exchange-traded products (ETPs) last week, with Ethereum investment products attracting $646 million in inflows, marking a return of institutional investor appetite for ETH.

Another day, another Ukrainian drone attack on a Russian oil facility. This time a major Gazprom oil and petrochemical facility in the republic of Bashkortostan was struck on Thursday.

“Two drones attacked the Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat enterprise,” Bashkortostan regional head Radiy Khabirov stated on Telegram. He called it a “terrorist attack” and described that security guards opened fire on the drones while they were inbound, though there were no injuries in the attack.

Videos from the scene showed thick black smoke rising above the facility, as emergency crews responded to battle the blaze and assess the damage – which is uncertain.

Gazprom Neftekhim Salavat refinery is one of the country’s largest, ranked as Russia’s 10th-largest and processing around 10 million metric tons of oil annually, and a huge array of petroleum and chemical products. This isn’t the first time it was struck by drones in an attack, given an incident which happened in 2024.

At least ten separate Russian refineries have come under cross-border drone attack from Ukraine since only early August, which has served to reduce nation-wide refining output by nearly 20% – or roughly 1.1 million barrels per day – and wholesale oil prices in Russia have risen sharply.

Gazprom refinery in Russia’s Bashkortostan is having a rough morning. pic.twitter.com/d9iK0otLEi

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) September 18, 2025

Ukraine’s military and media have classified Russia’s refineries as essentially military targets, given they prop up funding of the armed forces as they execute Putin’s ‘special military operation’.

For example there was this early August statement from Ukrainian media:

According to Ukraine’s General Staff, the ELOU-AVT-6 primary oil processing unit, with an estimated annual capacity of 6 million tons, was hit.

The plant, which has a capacity of 13.8 million tons per year, was previously struck by Ukrainian drones on Aug. 2, forcing two of its three main refining units to halt operations.

Ukraine’s military said the facility plays a role in supporting Russia’s armed forces.

This reveals a concerted effort to permanently damage the Kremlin’s ability to fund the war. Newsmax has previously observed that “The impact has been felt nationwide. Motorists face fuel shortages, long lines, and record prices.”

Salavat oil refinery in Bashkortostan lies more than 800 miles from the Ukrainian border…

The report noted further, “Wholesale gasoline prices have jumped 54% since January, prompting authorities to suspend exports and impose rationing in some regions.”

Meanwhile, according to TASS on Thursday, “The Russian Finance Ministry is budgeting for a gradual decrease in dependence on oil and gas, with the oil cutoff price in the budget rule planned to fall to $55 per barrel by 2030, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said at the Moscow Financial Forum.”

Siluanov said, “In order to make finances sustainable, we propose and budget for a reduction in the budget’s dependence on various restrictions, be they price or volume, on oil and gas revenues.”

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

The House of Representatives on Sept. 17 rejected a bid to censure Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) for comments she made about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk following his assassination.

The censure motion, brought by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), would have also stripped Omar of her assignments on the Education and the Workforce Committee and the Budget Committee.

It was tabled in a 214–213 vote. Four Republicans joined all Democrats in voting to drop consideration of the measure.

The motion regarded the remarks Omar made about Kirk during an interview on Zeteo.

During the interview, Omar criticized those she said were “people who are out there talking about him just wanting to have a civil debate.”

“There is nothing more [expletive] to completely pretend his words and actions have not been recorded and in existence for the last decade or so,” the lawmaker said.

Mace’s resolution also cited Omar’s repost of a video on X that described Kirk as a “reprehensible human being.”

Mace condemned Republicans who voted to table the measure.

“Democrats and these 4 ‘Republicans’ chose Ilhan Omar over decency, over justice, and over Charlie Kirk’s family,” Mace wrote in a post on X after the vote.

“They showed us exactly who they are. Never forget it.”

Omar, meanwhile, thanked her House colleagues “for having my back and not furthering lies on the House floor.

“Appreciate them safeguarding first amendment protections and the usage of the censure,” she said in a post on X after the vote.

One of the four Republicans who voted to table the measure, Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.), defended his vote in a post on X.

“The 7 Articles and 27 Amendments of our Constitution are not only to be followed when it serves your purpose,” Mills wrote.

“This is a [First Amendment] issue. We may not like or agree with what someone says, but that does not mean we should deny their [First Amendment] Right.”

Reps. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.), and Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) also voted to table the measure.

After Mace unveiled her resolution to censure Omar, Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) responded with a countermeasure to censure Mills over allegations involving his personal and professional conduct.

Earlier this month, lawmakers in the lower chamber also rejected an effort to censure Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and strip her of her committee assignments after she was indicted on federal assault charges following a clash with federal officers at an immigrant detention center in Newark, New Jersey.

Initial jobless claims tumbled back into their four year range after spiking the prior week. From 264k prior, 231k Americans filed for jobless benefits for the first time last week

Source: Bloomberg

The drop in initial claims reflects a reversion of the mystery spike in Texas (apparently driven by hiring/firing of state educators)…

Source: Bloomberg

Texas swung from the biggest increase to the largest decrease in claims…

Continuing Claims trended lower but remains above the Maginot Line of 1.9 million Americans…

Source: Bloomberg

Will this lead Powell and The Fed to now cut back on their easing bias? Baffle ’em with bullshit (data) is back…

China has concluded its antitrust investigation into Google’s Android empire in the world’s largest handset market, a move that should be viewed as a tactical concession in U.S.-China trade talks and TikTok negotiations.

President Trump and President Xi are set to discuss trade on Friday, with negotiations for TikTok still underway. At the same time, Beijing has tightened pressure on Nvidia, banning major Chinese tech firms from buying certain AI chips earlier this week. 

The Financial Times reports that the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) has terminated its competition investigation into Google, which was formally opened in February and focused on the Android operating system and its impact on domestic brands, including Oppo and Xiaomi.

“Drop one case but seize the other,” said one person familiar with SAMR operations, adding, “China is trying to narrow its retaliatory targets to make them more potent.”

On Monday, SAMR, China’s top market regulator, ruled that Nvidia had violated anti-monopoly laws in its acquisition of Mellanox Technologies, an Israeli-American networking products supplier. The antitrust review began in 2019. 

By Wednesday, the Cyberspace Administration barred Alibaba, ByteDance, and other tech firms from purchasing Nvidia’s AI chips, including the RTX Pro 6000D, which was custom-built for the Chinese market. Domestic chips, mostly, achieved the same performance as Nvidia’s model. 

“Google barely has any meaningful business in China — this is purely a symbolic gesture of goodwill,” Vey-Sern Ling, a managing director at Union Bancaire Privee, told Bloomberg. “Every favor is counted, even those that don’t cost anything.”

China’s regulatory recalibration to focus on Nvidia comes as Beijing and Washington ramp up negotiations over TikTok, with Trump scheduled to speak with Xi tomorrow.

Mounting Chinese pressure on Nvidia comes as the chart below shows that upside price action has stalled since mid-August. The $180 level is the current resistance.

Crypto czar David Sacks lists major China news in the AI race: 

There was major news from China in the AI race this week:
1. Huawei introduced a new AI chip to compete with Nvidia.
2. The Chinese government instructed Chinese companies to stop buying certain Nvidia AI chips.

Taken together, the message is clear: China is not desperate for… pic.twitter.com/KcrrI7WJCs

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) September 18, 2025

. . . 

British magnate Lynn Forester de Rothschild is considering the sale of a long held family stake in The Economist magazine.  Rothschild has hired advisers at Lazard to explore selling a 20% stake for as much as £400m, according to Bloomberg. 

Any sale would represent the most dramatic change in ownership for the 182-year-old weekly since 2015, when British education publisher Pearson sold the majority of its 50% stake alongside its sale of The Financial Times.  The magazine was founded in 1843 and has enjoyed Rothschild investment ever since. 

However, overall readership has been in decline for at least a decade, which is the likely reason for the sale of shares by longtime benefactors.  In 2015 The Economist maintained an audience of 1.6 million; that has fallen to 1.2 million in 2025, similar to reader numbers the outlet held in the early 2000s. 

The Economist has grown increasingly and openly left-leaning in that time period, with a distinct hostility towards the Trump Administration.  Headlines such as “Donald Trump Is Unpopular. Why Is It So Hard To Stand Up To Him?”, “The Sinister Brilliance Of Donald Trump’s Security Theatre” and “Donald Trump’s Awful Trade Policy Will Outlast Him” have become a common theme for the publication.  

It should come as no surprise, but The Economist is also aggressively globalist in its ideological bent with numerous articles warning of potential doom should the current order be disrupted by populism, international trade restrictions or a focus on domestic production over outsourcing.  They also continue to defend mass immigration to the west from third world nations, exploiting the common fallacies used by woke progressives, including the claim that western economies cannot survive without population growth sourced from migration.  

These arguments commonly use GDP expansion data as “proof” that mass immigration improves western economies.  In reality, GDP in the west is calculated to include a large percentage of government spending.  As migrants enter the US or Europe, around 60% (or more) immediately tap into government subsidies and welfare programs.  This increases government spending, and thus, increases GDP (directly and indirectly). 

Federal and state government spending in the US accounts for at least 30% of total national GDP.  This is why states like California, with their open borders and sanctuary status, seem to enjoy superior GDP numbers – They spend more taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants, thereby driving up their GDP.   

It’s not legitimate economic improvement, it’s wealth redistribution on a global scale. It’s a scam.  This is just one of the many false narratives promoted buy The Economist over the years.

The Economist is also well known for its creepy predictive annual covers, which some people believe are rife with symbolism and secret messages.  Others suggest the magazine is a platform for globalists like the Rothschilds to test the waters on Orwellian policies.  Take a look at this cover from 1988 stating “Get ready for a world currency” (2018 just happened to coincide with the global proliferation of digital currencies and crypto):

As readership in corporate media dwindles and more people turn to alternative sources on the web, legacy publications like The Economist will face numerous obstacles to growth in the next five years.  The Rothschilds are well known for their “uncanny” ability to jump ship on bad investments before a greater plunge.  It would appear that The Economist’s long relationship with the family is no longer enough to keep them interested.