Update: The Trump administration is seeking a $1 billion settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles, CNN has exclusively learned, marking the latest effort by the White House to shape higher education and extract significant concessions from universities.

Officials from UCLA have returned to the negotiating table, a source familiar with the matter said, and have made clear they would like to reach a deal to restore that funding.

The Trump administration, in turn, is laying its marker for a high-dollar settlement.

* * *

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The federal government suspended $584 million worth of grants to the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA), the university’s Chancellor, Julio Frenk, said in an Aug. 6 statement to community members.

“If these funds remain suspended, it will be devastating for UCLA,” he said.

The funding cancellation affects UCLA departments that rely on grants from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy.

“The suspension of these funds is not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants,“ he said. ”It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on our groundbreaking research and scholarship.”

The university announced the funding cancellation on July 31 without identifying the exact amount to be cut.

The announcement was made after the Department of Justice (DOJ) said in a July 29 statement that UCLA violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by “acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students.”

The DOJ said that UCLA failed to appropriately respond to complaints about Jewish and Israeli students facing “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment and abuse” on its campus since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack against Israel by the Hamas terrorist group.

“This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in the statement.

Under Title VI, the federal government has the authority to withhold funding from educational institutions found to be discriminating on the basis of race, national origin, or religion.

In a July 29 notice of violation issued to UCLA, the DOJ said that Jewish students reported being assaulted or denied access to campus facilities due to their faith. In one instance, a student was knocked down by protestors, suffered a head injury, and had to be hospitalized, the DOJ stated.

The DOJ gave UCLA until Aug. 5 to reach a voluntary agreement resolving the issue, failing which, the agency planned to file a federal lawsuit against the university by Sept. 2, the notice said.

In the July 31 message, Frenk said that UCLA has taken “robust actions” to make its campus safe for all students.

Earlier this year, the university instituted new policies to manage campus protests and has taken action against conduct violating the institution’s policies, he said.

UCLA has launched an initiative aimed at extinguishing anti-Semitism on the campus “completely and definitively,” Frenk wrote.

“As part of this initiative, UCLA is implementing recommendations of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias,“ he wrote. ”These include enhancing relevant training and education, improving the complaint system, ensuring enforcement of current and new laws and policies and cooperating with stakeholders.”

Frenk said federal research grants are not “handouts,” that researchers from the university “compete fiercely” to secure such funding, and that the work conducted by these researchers is crucial to America’s safety, health, and economic future.

On Aug. 4, senior leaders at the university held a town hall attended by 3,150 faculty and staff to discuss the issue, following which the university estimated that grant suspensions by federal agencies would put $584 million in funding at risk, Frenk said.

“We are doing everything we can to protect the interests of faculty, students, and staff—and to defend our values and principles,“ he said. ”The UC Board of Regents and the UC Office of the President are providing counsel as we actively evaluate our best course of action.”

Removing Discrimination, Harassment

Other U.S. universities have agreed to adhere to the federal government’s policies, often after the Trump administration threatened federal funding cuts.

Columbia University was, until recently, in conflict with the administration over the issue of alleged anti-Semitic incidents on campus. In March, government agencies cut $400 million in university funding because of this issue.

Last month, the university announced it would pay $200 million to resolve allegations that it discriminated against Jewish students, securing restoration of federal grants in return.

“While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution’s leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed,” the university said, announcing its deal with the federal government.

On July 30, Brown University said it reached an agreement with the federal government after being in conflict over the issue of violating Title IX, which prohibits sexual discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funding.

Under the deal, the university committed to making policy adjustments such as using the Trump administration’s definitions of “male” and “female” for athletes and housing on campus. This includes installing female-only floors at dormitories and offering male and female bathrooms. The university also vowed to take measures to address anti-Semitism on campus.

The agreement restores federal funding to the university for research and ends the government’s investigation into racial and sexual discrimination.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon applauded the deal.

“Restoring our nation’s higher education institutions to places dedicated to truth-seeking, academic merit, and civil debate—where all students can learn free from discrimination and harassment—will be a lasting legacy of the Trump administration, one that will benefit students and American society for generations to come,” she said.

Authored by Adam Sharp via Daily Reckoning,

Young Americans are fracturing along ideological fault lines.

They are breaking into two camps. For lack of better terms, we will call them the far-right and far-left.

Unfortunately, there are few surveys which ask these kinds of questions. Pollsters still query along legacy party lines, Democrat vs. Republican, even though those labels are losing relevance.

Fortunately I have two teenage kids, and friends in the same boat. So I have a pretty good read on young Americans’ political leanings.

Most kids I know fall into one of two buckets. Let’s call them America First nationalists and hardcore socialists.

Girls are more likely to be on the far-left, while young men are increasingly right-wing. This gender divide couldn’t be clearer, at least in my area.

This shift to the extremes is understandable. Both sides are angry, and for good reason. The system isn’t working for them.

Young people today see a world in which they have no chance of affording a house. See the chart below, which shows how the average age of homebuyers has soared over recent decades.

The median homebuyer is now 56 years old! That’s up from 31 in 1981. Wages simply haven’t kept up with housing costs. The American dream is increasingly out of reach.

As kids, Gen Z was told to go to college and they’d get a 6-figure desk job. Now they’re graduating, often saddled with unpayable debt, into a rough market for new white-collar workers. Blue-collar workers are having less trouble finding steady work, but inflation is a pervasive problem.

The young left sees the solution in more socialism. The young right wants politicians to put America first and shrink the government. Both want to end corruption and tear down the status quo.

Strangely, on certain issues these two seemingly distant emerging political wings agree.

Increasing Nationalism

On both the left and the right, different kinds of nationalist sentiment is rising. Both right and left are increasingly against immigration, for example. For too long, mainstream politicians spurred immigration into the States. Broad support for this is ending.

And the more hardcore wings of each side are increasingly angry about America’s many foreign entanglements. They want the war in Ukraine to end. And Gen Z as a whole tends to disapprove of American support for Israel. This is in sharp contrast to older conservatives, who still tend to support Israel.

In general, young people want more focus on America’s issues, and less on the world’s. Again, this is completely understandable. Our youth is struggling, and they see trillions of dollars being spent overseas. Meanwhile our debt load continually rises.  It is politically and economically unsustainable.

Consequences and Direction

For the past 30 years, the left has dominated the culture wars. Think political-correctness, DEI, LGBTQ propaganda in schools, and immigration. Even mainstream conservatives gave way on these issues.

Now everything is changing.

The young right is on the rise, and the consequences of this shift will be dramatic and long-lasting.

A recent post by Robert Sterling on X summed up the situation perfectly:

The left has no idea the monster they’ve created with Gen Z men. Absolutely no idea.

These guys spent their formative years navigating an unprecedented social experiment—COVID lockdowns; DEI struggle sessions; pronouns, micro-aggressions, land acknowledgements, intersectional justice—and, as a demographic, they simply snapped. They stopped fearing cancellation, they realized black marks on social credit scores don’t leave permanent stains, and they started owning—rather than futilely trying to defend against—the accusations of villainry they had suffered since young age.

It’s a wholesale reactionary movement against a political system—more than that, a culture at large—which, rightly or wrongly, they see as dedicated to their emasculation. A system that, in their view, creates little of value, affords them scant opportunity, celebrates that which is ugly and mediocre and profanes that which is sacred.

From the fires of this crucible is emerging the most right-wing generation I’ve ever seen. And from the unhinged group chats of today are emerging the legislators and congressmen of tomorrow.

The left has no idea what they have done, and they can’t imagine what the second- and third-order effects of this will be.

Nailed it. Historically, major political shifts are driven by disaffected young men. That’s where we are with America’s youth today. Especially on the right.

President Trump is responsible for some of this shift, but I suspect the young right movement will eventually outgrow his brand of conservatism. Don’t get me wrong, Trump is a vast improvement from Biden and past GOP leaders. But he’s still too mainstream for these disaffected young Americans.

For the past 3 decades, mainstream Democrats, neocons, and RINOs had their way with the direction of America. This new generation will lead the way to change that.

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

President Donald Trump had ordered the federal government to increase law enforcement presence in Washington to combat violent crime, the White House said on Aug. 7.

“President Trump has directed an increased presence of federal law enforcement to protect innocent citizens,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, noting that the city “has been plagued by violent crime for far too long.”

The White House said that additional law enforcement officers would be deployed on the streets for seven days commencing midnight following an 11 p.m. roll call on Thursday at an established command center.

The operation, led by U.S. Park Police, will involve officers from the U.S. Capitol Police, Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Protective Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Enforcement and Removal Operations, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Marshals Service, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. The number of officers had not been disclosed.

District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser’s office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Before the announcement, Trump said on Aug. 5 he was considering placing the District of Columbia under federal control after the recent assault of former Department of Government Efficiency staffer Edward Coristine.

The assault allegedly involved underage gang members. Two 15-year-olds were arrested in connection with the attack, and police said they are still looking for other members of the group.

“Crime in Washington, D.C., is totally out of control,” Trump stated on Truth Social. “If D.C. doesn’t get its act together, and quickly, we will have no choice but to take Federal control of the City, and run this City how it should be run, and put criminals on notice that they’re not going to get away with it anymore.”

The president demanded that the city—which is run by a locally elected city council and mayor—change its ordinances regarding the prosecution of minor offenders. He said that offenders as young as age 14 should be subject to trial as an adult for violent offenses.

“Local ‘youths’ and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released,” he stated.

On March 28, Trump signed an executive order establishing the D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, which will be tasked with ensuring “maximum enforcement” of federal immigration law in the city, reviewing federal prosecutorial policies on pretrial detention for criminal defendants, and monitoring the city’s sanctuary-city status.

The order also directed the task force to work with local law enforcement to facilitate the deployment of “a more robust local law enforcement” in areas of Washington and to ensure strict enforcement of “all applicable quality of life, nuisance, and public-safety laws” in the city.

The Associated Press and Joseph Lord contributed to this report.

During last night’s ZeroHedge panel on the Oklahoma City bombing, attorney Jesse Trentadue (whose brother Kenneth Trentadue was murdered by the FBI then covered up in the wake of the OKC bombing) had two requests for the Trump administration: “[release] the videotape of the bombing and unseal John Matthews’ deposition, because the Department of Justice has it sealed, and President Trump’s Department of Justice is fighting to keep it sealed.”

Trentadue filed a FOIA lawsuit in 2008 to get the surveillance tapes — which the FBI is on record acknowledging exist — but the bureau has told him “they can’t find it”.

“You would think if you had a videotape showing who committed this horrific crime, wouldn’t that have been exhibit number one in McVeigh’s criminal trial? The reason it wasn’t because I believe that second person was an FBI operative who got out of that truck.”

Investigative reporter and author Peter Schweizer, who hosted the ZH panel, responded: “Let’s make sure that those two messages are delivered to Pam Bondi.” 

Well as our other guest, Margaret Roberts, pointed out… it already has been delivered… by Jesse.

“Those are the two critical calls to action. Jesse has a letter on Attorney General Bondi’s desk since March asking the Justice Department to stand down from its opposition to unsealing the John Matthews deposition.”

Roberts recently published her book Blowback: The Untold Story of the FBI and the Oklahoma City Bombing (available here).

She continued, “The other area here that needs addressing is the FOIA process. This is supposed to be the citizens’ last resort for obtaining records that belong to the American public. This story belongs to the public, not locked away in secret government vaults. The many exclusions available to the secret keepers inside these government agencies make it almost impossible.”

“Jesse has navigated this flawed process so masterfully, and yet this FOIA action to release the videotapes has just been sitting marooned for more than a decade. John Matthews told Jesse he had been pressured by the FBI not to tell his story… FOIA needs to be fixed.”

Check out the full discussion here, shorter than our typical debates but packed with info:

https://t.co/c1e9mSWnIp

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 7, 2025

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

Big news today: the Trump administration has formally approved a framework allowing Bitcoin to be offered as an investment option in select 401(k) retirement plans. This move, supported by recent regulatory shifts and increasing institutional pressure, opens the door for millions of Americans to allocate a portion of their retirement savings directly into BTC.

While adoption will likely start conservatively — limited to plans with modern custodial infrastructure and strict compliance standards — the psychological and financial implications are enormous. Bitcoin is no longer just a fringe asset or a speculative hedge; it’s now entering the most conservative, mainstream corner of personal finance: retirement accounts.

What this marks, more than anything, is the deepening entanglement of Bitcoin within the broader U.S. economic machine. Between ETFs, corporate treasuries, public pension exposure, and now retirement plans, Bitcoin is increasingly woven into the fabric of modern finance. Whether you believe in its future or not, the truth is that unwinding Bitcoin from the financial system is no longer a simple matter.

Like the internet in the late 1990s, Bitcoin has crossed a threshold — it’s no longer an outsider trying to break in; it’s inside the walls.

That can be a great thing — if this is, in fact, the early stages of a digital monetary revolution. Bitcoin’s fixed supply, decentralized nature, and programmable infrastructure could serve as a resilient foundation for a more transparent, open, and efficient financial system. For a generation of savers and workers increasingly skeptical of fiat inflation and disillusioned with traditional finance, allocating a portion of their 401(k) into Bitcoin could be both a philosophical and economic bet on a more digital future. It could also act as a hedge — not just against inflation, but against systemic monetary mismanagement.

But there’s another, darker possibility: that we are threading Bitcoin so deeply into our financial infrastructure that if the protocol ever fails — whether due to technical, regulatory, or security collapse — it could pull down enormous portions of capital with it.

If Bitcoin ever implodes after reaching true institutional scale, it could spark a global liquidity crisis, shake faith in U.S. financial judgment, and potentially accelerate the erosion of American economic dominance. In other words, if you thread a volatile protocol too tightly into the most systemically important investment vehicles — like 401(k)s — and it fails, the damage might not be containable.

To help you think clearly about where this is heading, I’ve included two takes that I think represent the best of the Bitcoin bull thesis, from someone who believes Bitcoin could 10x or more— and the best of the Bitcoin bear thesis, from an extremely well written article that predicts — with technical specifications — that Bitcoin will go to $0.

The first is a bull case from my friend and macro investor James Lavish, who sees Bitcoin as the only rational hedge against inevitable fiat debasement. The second is a bear case — arguably one of the most under-discussed risks in the space — that quantum computing could render Bitcoin’s cryptography obsolete and reduce the entire network to digital dust. Both are well-informed, well-reasoned perspectives. And you deserve to understand both.

I’m not telling you which side to take — because honestly, I’m still wrestling with it myself. But make no mistake: we’re undergoing a paradigm shift in finance that rivals the creation of the internet or the removal of the gold standard.

If Bitcoin scales into…say…a $20 trillion asset — as some bulls predict it will (gold’s current market cap) — it could either be the final step toward financial decentralization or the biggest systemic risk in modern economic history. Either way, you need to understand the stakes. Read both sides.

James Lavish presents a compelling bull case for Bitcoin, rooted in a deep understanding of macroeconomic imbalances and the structural flaws of modern fiat systems. At the core of his thesis is the idea that we are locked into an inescapable debt spiral — a condition where developed nations, particularly the U.S., must continuously expand credit and debase their currency just to meet existing obligations. This includes massive entitlement programs, ballooning interest payments, and escalating defense spending. In such an environment, where monetary policy is used not as a tool of stability but as a political necessity, Lavish argues that a hard, incorruptible asset like Bitcoin becomes not just attractive, but essential.

What distinguishes Lavish’s perspective is how he arrived at Bitcoin after years in traditional finance, initially skeptical like many of his Wall Street peers. He was introduced to Bitcoin through personal and intellectual curiosity, accelerated by the pandemic-era money printing, and deepened by his own research. Eventually, he came to view Bitcoin as “singular” among digital assets — a mathematically governed, decentralized monetary network immune to policy manipulation and impervious to centralized control. Lavish likens it to “digital gold,” but better: finite in supply, globally accessible, and secured by a distributed energy-based consensus mechanism that makes it practically unchangeable and nation-state resistant.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

For Lavish, Bitcoin’s real power lies in its ability to act as a hedge against the unavoidable erosion of purchasing power caused by fiat currency debasement. He explains how the monetary system, when colliding with deflationary forces from technological innovation, is forced to expand even faster just to maintain the illusion of stability. Bitcoin, in contrast, offers a store of value that doesn’t rely on perpetual growth or centralized trust — just math and consensus. He argues that as more people understand this — not just investors, but institutions and governments — Bitcoin’s market share will grow, gradually siphoning capital away from weaker stores of value like gold, real estate, and eventually even sovereign debt.

Lavish is also bullish on the growing legitimacy of Bitcoin in the eyes of institutional finance. He points to recent regulatory shifts, like the changes in GAAP accounting and the rollback of punitive SEC rules, as well as increasing stablecoin demand — all of which help embed Bitcoin deeper into the financial system. His fund, which operates on a Bitcoin standard, reflects his belief in Bitcoin’s long-term outperformance relative to other risk assets. He’s not just passively holding; he’s actively deploying capital into both Bitcoin and Bitcoin-adjacent companies that are building real revenue-generating businesses around the ecosystem.

Ultimately, Lavish sees Bitcoin as a rational response to a broken system. It’s not just about outsized returns or hype cycles — it’s about opting out of a fiat regime that’s lost credibility and anchoring to a monetary asset that operates independently of political whim. For Lavish, Bitcoin isn’t merely an investment — it’s a lifeboat. You can listen to his full bull case included in this article here. 

And on the bearish side of things — if you care about Bitcoin—whether you’re a casual HODLer, a developer, or a diehard maxi—here, linked on my blog, you will find an article you need to read. It’s not alarmist, it’s not anti-Bitcoin; it’s a technically grounded, eye-opening breakdown of how quantum computing could upend the very cryptographic foundations that Bitcoin is built on.

The implications aren’t some distant sci-fi threat—they’re real, they’re accelerating, and most shockingly, they’re rarely discussed in mainstream crypto circles. This piece lays it all out with clarity, urgency, and a surprising dose of wit. Ignore it at your own risk. The key points go something like this.

Bitcoin’s core security is built on cryptographic assumptions that may not hold in the near future. At the heart of Bitcoin lies SHA-256 hashing and ECDSA digital signatures—techniques once thought unbreakable. These methods rely on the idea that you can’t reverse-engineer a hash or derive a private key from a public one. But quantum computing changes the game.

Grover’s Algorithm could dramatically reduce the effort needed to attack the SHA-256 hash function, while Shor’s Algorithm can outright crack ECDSA, threatening Bitcoin wallets that have already exposed public keys—especially those used in past transactions.

The danger isn’t hypothetical—it’s already baked into Bitcoin’s history. Over 89% of Bitcoin has public keys visible on-chain, meaning a future quantum computer could eventually seize control of those funds. Even legendary wallets like Satoshi’s are vulnerable.

If a quantum actor ever accesses these coins—whether to steal them, prove a point, or just test a capability—it could spark panic. The mere perception that Bitcoin’s “immovable” foundation is compromised may shatter trust and trigger a catastrophic sell-off before any patch or fork can be coordinated.

And fixing it isn’t simple—if it’s even possible. Bitcoin’s strength is its immutability, but that same rigidity could be its downfall. Transitioning to post-quantum cryptography would require mass coordination across exchanges, wallets, miners, and users—many of whom are inactive or unreachable.

It’s not a simple update; it’s a complete overhaul. And unlike centralized platforms, Bitcoin can’t be “paused” or quickly patched. So if a quantum breakthrough arrives before a full migration is done, Bitcoin’s codebase could be broken, and with it, the very trust that gives it value. Read the full bear case here:

Bitcoin bulls respond to the quantum computing bear case by arguing that while the threat is real in theory, it remains distant in practice — likely a decade or more away due to the immense technical challenge of building a sufficiently powerful and error-corrected quantum computer. In the meantime, they emphasize that the Bitcoin developer community is already exploring and drafting proposals for post-quantum cryptographic upgrades, such as integrating quantum-resistant signature schemes like SPHINCS+ or XMSS.

Bulls also point out that Bitcoin’s open-source, decentralized nature gives it a unique advantage: if a credible quantum threat emerges, the network can coordinate a protocol upgrade through soft or hard forks, much like it has adapted in the past. Ultimately, they see the quantum threat not as a death sentence, but as a solvable engineering problem — one Bitcoin will have ample time and incentive to address.

Either way, with today’s news about Bitcoin getting even deeper into the U.S. economic system, it seems like a great time for a refresher on the best, and worst case scenarios.

I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Bloomberg is reporting, according to people familiar with the matter, that Washington and Moscow are aiming to reach a deal to halt the war in Ukraine that would lock in Russia’s occupation of territory seized during its military invasion.

US and Russian officials are working toward an agreement on territories for a planned summit meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin as early as next week, the people said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations.

The US is working to get buy-in from Ukraine and its European allies on the deal, which is far from certain, the people said.

Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede its entire eastern Donbas area to Russia as well as Crimea, which his forces illegally annexed in 2014.

That would require Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to order a withdrawal of troops from parts of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions still held by Kyiv, handing Russia a victory that its army couldn’t achieve militarily since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022.

Such an outcome would represent a major win for Putin, who has long sought direct negotiations with the US on terms for ending the war that he started, sidelining Ukraine and its European allies.

What are the odds Zelensky goes for this deal… and will Europe back it?

Zelenskiy risks being presented with a take-it-or-leave-it deal to accept the loss of Ukrainian territory, while Europe fears it would be left to monitor a ceasefire as Putin rebuilds his forces.

Russia would halt its offensive in the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine along the current battlelines as part of the deal, the people said. They cautioned that the terms and plans of the accord were still in flux and could still change.

Oil prices immediately tumbled on the report…

The White House didn’t reply to a request to comment.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn’t immediately respond to a request to comment.

Ukraine declined to comment on the proposals.

It’s still unclear if Putin would agree to take part in a trilateral meeting with Trump and Zelenskiy next week, even if he had already struck an agreement with the US president, the people added.

The Russian leader told reporters on Thursday that he didn’t object to meeting Zelenskiy under the right conditions, though he said they don’t exist now.

Via SchiffGold.com,

Along with Trump, market watchers are salivating for rate cuts. But rates should be higher, not lower – and in a free market, they would be.

In a free market, interest rates are determined by the supply and demand for credit. Savers provide capital (supply) while borrowers like businesses, consumers, and governments create demand. Rates would reflect the real cost of capital. They would balance risk, inflation expectations, and real economic conditions.

Instead, we trust a small handful of individuals with full implied mastery of an infinitely complex system with endless interdependent factors that even they admit they don’t fully understand. It’s absolute madness when this same system, left to its own devices, would self-correct on its own if we allowed it to. In that self-correcting system, rates would be drastically higher than they are now.

All central planning does is distort markets by trying to override the natural order in favor of the preferred reality of bankers, bureaucrats, politicians, and academics. While you can achieve a brief illusion of success, you can’t do that forever. Meanwhile, most people have too little understanding of the dynamics, and too short an attention span to realize what’s actually happening. That includes politicians.

The prevailing popular sentiment always seems to be that we can just make the economy great by declaring lower interest rates and printing money, and that monetary easing is both necessary and inevitable. But while investors focus on short-term gains, the underlying conditions almost never support rate cuts in today’s economy. 

Real interest rates are still low by historical standards, and the federal government continues to run huge fiscal deficits. Inflation is still a problem and consumer prices are going to keep going up. Lowering rates even more will make those problems worse.

As Peter Schiff said recently on Fox Business:

“We still have a lot of inflation in the pipeline from all the money the Fed’s been printing over the last, you know, couple of decades.”

Peter also mentioned the inflationary impact of Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill, which adds fuel to the fire the Fed has already lit and stoked:

“Plus we have the Big Beautiful Bill, that is highly inflationary, because of its massive increases in already big deficits. So I think there’s a lot of inflation that’s coming, and you’ve got the impact of tariffs that is lagging a bit, but it’s going to be there.”

As for Powell, in the face of political pressure and opposition in his own ranks, he at least seems to understand that inflation is still too high, staying steadfast that rates shouldn’t be lowered yet. But he even went as far as leaving the door open to hike them (albeit vaguely, as the Fed always does):

“And so now you have Powell saying I’m going to do ‘whatever it takes’ (to bring down inflation), and that is going to require rate hikes.”

Artificially low rates incentivize borrowing, discourage saving, and misallocate capital into speculative ventures. The asset bubbles and malinvestment can take years to unwind, which then leads to calls for even more intervention. That’s the cycle we’re seeing now, and the one we see over and over.

So while Powell is right for not cutting rates, he was already wrong to have dropped them as low as they already are. The bigger and much more important fact is that Powell’s job shouldn’t exist at all. In a free market, rates would be drastically higher, as they would have to go sky-high for the system to properly correct. If left to their own devices, the blatant unsustainability of the US debt would ring all the market’s alarm bells with regard to default, pushing up Treasury yields. 

Abysmal personal savings would drive rates higher still, as the average American has basically nothing in the bank, and has retirement accounts consisting of a social security ponzi and 401ks filled with stocks that only go up because the currency keeps becoming less valuable. 

Look at US household saving rates as just one basic example. They spiked right around the time everyone got handed a wad of free, freshly-printed money. Now, five years later, they’re even lower than they were before the spike.

US Personal Savings, 10-Year

Global demand for dollars and Treasuries help keep rates down, but as confidence in the dollar drops more and more, rates will have to keep going up to continue attracting that capital. Ultimately, the Fed can only mess with short-term rates, and trying to keep them artificially low  can only give the illusion of succeeding for so long.

The market’s desire for lower interest rates is understandable, especially in the face of sluggish growth, instability, and high borrowing costs. Ultimately, the solution is not more central planning or different leadership at the Fed, but abolishing central monetary planning altogether. Rather than waiting for the Fed to “get it right,” policymakers and economists should be asking whether the Fed should be setting rates at all. While more people are asking this question than probably at any other time in modern economic history, the established orthodoxy continues to refuse to regard it as anything but a total non-starter.

A free-market approach to interest rates would result in massively higher rates and promote sounder long-term decision-making, both by investors and by governments. But it would cause tremendous economic pain as the low rate-addicted economy figures out how to grapple with its paper-thin security blanket being ripped away. 

It’s hard to imagine a Fed Chair, or president, who would be willing to publicly encourage this kind of reset.

On Thursday President Trump named current CEA Chair Stephen Miran to serve as Fed governor for the remainder of outgoing Governor Kugler’s term. That term ends at the end of January, and the president indicated that the administration is continuing to search for a “permanent replacement.”

Like Peter Navarro, Miran has a PhD in economics from Harvard, and has also offered some unorthodox economic views, particularly about reforming the Fed. Almost all the substantive reforms he’s suggested would require Congressional action, something that does not appear to be immediately likely.

Separately, Bloomberg confirmed what we have been saying for months, namely that current Governor Waller is now the favorite in the race to succeed Powell as Fed chair. Waller is viewed as a widely respected policymaker who would represent continuity and whose nomination would very likely be cheered by markets, yet his recent Fed contrarian calls (he was one of two dissenters last week) have made him a darling in the eyes of the Trump admin. 

As JPM chief economist Michael Feroli reminds us, last year, Miran penned an opinion piece arguing for hawkish monetary policy, although as Feroli adds, he “very much doubts that remains his view today.” And while getting Miran approved by the Senate after it gets back from recess on September 5 but before the next FOMC meeting starts on September 16 would be a Herculean task, many thought that about getting OBBBA done before July 4.

Historically, new governors or Fed presidents have sometimes abstained from voting at their first FOMC meeting. But Feroli – and we – suspect that may not be the case now. So, according to the JPM analyst, in the off chance Miran is governor by the time of the next meeting, that could imply three dissents. That’s a lot of dissents.

For Powell the risk management considerations at the next meeting may go beyond balancing employment and inflation risks, and JPMorgan now sees the path of least resistance is to pull forward the next 25bp cut to the September meeting, while also continuing to look for three like-sized cuts at the subsequent three meetings before pausing indefinitely.

But what about the S&P printing new record highs every day? Well, as Feroli notes, “it’s not unprecedented for the Fed to ease when stocks are at or near all-time highs” although he caveats that “it’s rarer when stocks are at the highs and inflation is above target and inflecting higher.” So, an ease next meeting isn’t likely to be broadly welcomed by the Committee, according to JPMorgan.

At the last FOMC meeting, Powell framed the labor market risks in the context of the unemployment rate. Simplifying to that one dimension, a rate of 4.4% or higher could get a larger-sized cut at the next meeting, while a rate of 4.1% or lower could prompt a few dissents for a full employment, above-target inflation cut. 

More in the full JPM note available to pro subs.

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

Disney has settled a legal dispute with actress Gina Carano following her dismissal from “The Mandalorian,” according to both parties.

Carano announced on social media that she had “come to an agreement” with Disney and its subsidiary, Lucasfilm, resolving the lawsuit she filed last year over her termination.

“I am humbled and grateful to God for His love and grace in this outcome,” she stated on X.

“I am excited to flip the page and move onto the next chapter. My desires remain in the arts, which is where I hope you will join me.”

The actress and former MMA star also expressed her gratitude to Tesla CEO Elon Musk, the owner of X, who helped fund her lawsuit. Carano said that Musk had backed her case without asking anything in return.

“I want to extend my deepest most heartfelt gratitude to Elon Musk, … a man I’ve never met, who did this Good Samaritan deed for me in funding my lawsuit,” she wrote.

A Lucasfilm spokesperson stated that the company will “look forward to identifying opportunities to work together with Ms. Carano in the near future” after the case resolved, adding that she has always been a well-respected actress.

The terms of the settlement have not yet been disclosed. Disney did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Disney fired Carano in 2021 over a social media post it described at the time as “abhorrent and unacceptable” for allegedly “denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities.”

In a now-deleted post, Carano stated that “because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views.”

Carano played rebel ranger Cara Dune on two seasons of “The Mandalorian” before she was terminated from her role. The actress had argued the firing was discriminatory and filed a lawsuit last year.

Her lawyers argued that Disney and Lucasfilm had targeted Carano for “harassment, termination, and public defamation” because she expressed views that did not align with the company.

In July last year, U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett denied Disney’s bid to dismiss the case, ruling that “the court cannot conclude, as defendants urge it to, that plaintiff’s continued employment by defendants would inhibit or intrude upon defendants’ rights to expressive association.”

Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank’s turnaround plan has hit a wall, with the athletic apparel and footwear maker forecasting worse-than-expected adjusted EPS and revenue, both missing Bloomberg Consensus estimates. 

The struggling Baltimore-based brand, once expected to challenge Nike but now severely falling short, said it expects revenue this quarter to decline between 6% and 7%, compared with the nearly 3% drop projected by analysts tracked by Bloomberg.

The takeaway from Under Armour’s Q2 guidance is that its turnaround plan is losing momentum amid mounting macro headwinds, tariffs, and soft consumer demand:

• Revenue Drop: A projected 6–7% decline, more than double Wall Street’s expected 3% fall, points to weaker demand, especially in the North America market, despite efforts to reposition the brand with premium products.

• Margin Pressure: A sharp gross margin contraction of 340 to 360 bps from tariffs, supply chain costs, and unfavorable channel mix suggests cost pressures are outweighing pricing gains.

• Earnings Downturn: Adjusted EPS guidance of just 1 cent to 2 cents versus the 26-cent consensus is a massive shortfall, implying that higher costs and weaker sales will erode profitability. 

• Limited Profitability: Even excluding restructuring costs, projected operating income of $30 million to $40 million is modest for a brand trying to reestablish growth.

While the new tariffs are creating major headwinds, the more unexpected and ominous sign is that demand across its North American market is shrinking amid Plank’s turnaround plan. 

“Moving ahead, we’re focused on strengthening our brand positioning with premium products and increasing our average selling prices through innovative offerings, optimizing our top-volume programs, and creating a more compelling full, price-to-value proposition. Regardless of the backdrop, this is about building a fearless, thoughtful, and stronger Under Armour,” Plank wrote in a statement. 

Under Armour delivered mixed Q1 results, slightly better than last year in profitability but still showing soft top-line growth and ongoing demand issues in key markets. 

Summary of Q1 results (courtesy of Bloomberg): 

Adjusted EPS 2.0c vs. 1.0c y/y, estimate 2.5c (Bloomberg Consensus)

Loss per share 1.0c vs. loss/shr 70c y/y, estimate EPS 1.2c

Net revenue $1.13 billion, -4.2% y/y, estimate $1.13 billion

• Apparel revenue $747 million, -1.4% y/y, estimate $735.5 million

• Licensing revenue $24.4 million, +12% y/y, estimate $22.6 million

• Footwear revenue $266 million, -14% y/y, estimate $291.8 million

• North America revenue $670.3 million, -5.5% y/y, estimate $672.1 million

• Asia Pacific revenue $163.4 million, -10% y/y, estimate $155.7 million

• EMEA revenue $248.6 million, +9.6% y/y, estimate $244.5 million

• Latin America revenue $54.6 million, -15% y/y, estimate $57.5 million

Adjusted operating income $24.4 million vs. $8 million y/y, estimate $20.7 million

Inventory $1.14 billion, +2% y/y, estimate $1.1 billion

Total location count 442, +0.2% y/y, estimate 443 (2 estimates)

Operating income $3.32 million vs. loss $299.7 million y/y, estimate $6.04 million

Shares are down as much as 20% in premarket trading, set for the largest decline in three years.