Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

The European Union is funded by contributions from its member states. At least, that’s what the founding treaties say. In practice, however, the EU has long been taking other paths.

At the core of Europe’s financial architecture lies a clear separation of responsibility and liability: Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the so-called “No-Bailout Clause.” It states, unequivocally, that neither the Union nor individual member states may assume the debts of other states. The purpose of this provision is to prevent free-rider effects (moral hazard) at the expense of other member states: each state is responsible for its own obligations.

Still, the clause does not exclude political support, as long as it does not mean assuming the existing debts of other states. A notable example of this practice were the bailout programs for Greece during the sovereign debt crisis one and a half decades ago.

Article 310 TFEU further regulates the EU budget: revenues and expenditures must be balanced every year, and the budget may only be financed through own resources such as member contributions, tariffs, or approved revenues. Independent loans by the EU Commission exceeding the approved framework are prohibited.

Together, these rules form the legal backbone of EU financial policy: no automatic liability, no autonomous EU debt, and only fully covered spending.

This design was deliberately chosen to prevent the emergence of a supra-state in Brussels and to defend the national scope of action of member states against an expanding Brussels bureaucracy.

Theory vs. Practice

That’s the theory. In practice, the EU has steadily increased its presence as a borrower in the bond market. It began in 1976 with the first European Community bond to support Italy and Ireland during the oil crisis. In the 1980s and 1990s, further issues followed for France, Greece, and Portugal—always aimed at demonstrating collective solidarity and easing fiscal tensions.

The 2008/2010 financial crisis marked a decisive turning point: with the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) and, in 2012, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the EU began deliberately supporting over-indebted member states via bond issuance. In 2010, the European Central Bank announced it would purchase euro sovereign bonds on the open market to prevent the collapse of the monetary union—always in close coordination with EU institutions.

The COVID years saw a new dimension in 2020: for the first time, the EU issued Social Bonds under the “SURE” fund. At the same time, the “Next Generation EU” program started, providing around €800 billion in crisis aid. Since 2025, the Union has increasingly relied on so-called “sustainable bonds” (Green Bonds) and plans to issue short-term treasury bills for improved liquidity management.

The EU and ECB now operate in tandem, integrating ever-new financing instruments into the capital markets. The signal to the market is clear: we are ready to meet growing demand for euro bonds. And as collateral, not only the European taxpayer but also the ECB’s virtually unlimited liquidity is on standby. What could possibly go wrong?

Market Demand

For the second half of 2025, the European Commission plans to issue up to €70 billion in EU bonds across six auctions with maturities ranging from three to thirty years. Already in March 2025, the Commission achieved the world’s largest bond issuance increase, totaling $30.62 billion; three placements alone amounted to €13.7 billion.

Demand is plentiful, thanks to dual backing from member states and the ECB: an October 2024 issuance of a seven-year bond was oversubscribed 17 times. Green bonds are especially in focus: up to €250 billion are planned under NextGenerationEU, with €48.91 billion already issued.

Yields on these bonds currently trade about 40 basis points above German Bunds, making them attractive for investors.

Quo Vadis EU?

The European Union is undeniably moving toward a form of autonomous statehood. Its rigid ideological directives and the apodictic tone adopted by Commission representatives toward member states recently culminated in the Commission unilaterally negotiating the EU-US trade agreement.

Regardless of the agreement’s outcome, this sends a clear signal: decision-making power and political competence are shifting markedly from national capitals to Brussels, where a centralized bureaucracy increasingly calls the shots.

A return to national autonomy and a Commission limited to core functions appears out of the question. This is reflected in Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s EU budget proposal for 2028–2034, projected at around €2 trillion—a 40% increase over the previous period.

Brussels’ fiscal megalomania has a single goal: enabling the EU to finance its activities independently, exploiting the fiscal constraints of member states. The outstanding €650 billion, formally to be raised by member states, hangs like a Damocles sword over ongoing negotiations—a constant pressure allowing the Commission to effectively enforce its financing plans through the bond market.

Apart from Hungary and the Czech Republic, there is broad agreement that Brussels’ financing will increasingly come from the bond market—no national budget could handle the extra levies. The Commission’s plans are therefore tacitly approved.

ECB as Lender of Last Resort

Everything points to a co-financing model that makes the EU increasingly independent of national budgets. Institutional constraints—such as individual member states’ say—are effectively bypassed, as is the Commission’s original prohibition on borrowing. Step by step, the Union is transforming from a rule-bound confederation into a centrally managed financial actor, increasingly deciding over its own resources and priorities.

Should debt ever spiral out of control, as has become common practice in the EU, the European Central Bank would be ready as a lender of last resort. This will work as long as the capital markets retain confidence in the EU’s creditworthiness, particularly Germany’s payment ability. If market faith collapses, the ECB would be forced to intervene in a way that would dwarf the 2010 debt crisis. The euro would then be history. The EU is skating on thin ice.

About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

A new report by Austria’s Public Employment Service (AMS) has sparked controversy after suggesting that some refugees are intentionally failing German language courses to avoid being placed in low-paying jobs.

The findings, published in the study “New Refugees from Syria on the Austrian Labor Market,” highlight a growing challenge for integration policy, with concerns that language training, once seen as the key to employment, is becoming a barrier instead.

In the report, one first-hand account from a Syrian woman who studied medicine in her home country and worked as a paediatrician in Turkey, criticized what she sees as a systemic problem: qualified Syrian women being pushed into cleaning jobs without any consideration of their professional skills. She claims that, in response, some refugees purposely fail their language exams to avoid being forced into such low-status work.

Central to her complaint is the issue of inadequate wages, which she says often do not even cover basic living expenses, making social benefits a more attractive option.

The case study appears to be supported by AMS data, which showed that two-thirds of those granted asylum or subsidiary protection require literacy training, and 44 percent are completely illiterate. As reported by Kosmo, the AMS notes that 30 percent of refugees still have no German-language knowledge even 18 months after registering in Austria. Many spent years in transit countries before arriving, and in some cases, they cannot even read in their native language.

In July 2025, the unemployment rate for Syrians in Austria stood at 45.4 percent. Vienna is the epicenter of the problem, with more than half of all unemployed migrants living in the capital. Meanwhile, in other federal states, tens of thousands of low-skilled jobs remain unfilled.

The AMS acknowledges that deliberately failing courses to avoid work may occur, but insists this is not a widespread practice. “There are probably isolated cases, but this does not exist as a perceptible phenomenon,” the agency says. However, it concedes that proving deliberate failure is “hardly feasible in practice.” Sanctions are only possible if it can be clearly demonstrated that a person intentionally sabotaged their course or exam.

The issue is also closely linked to Austria’s welfare system. Some migrants may calculate that low-skilled work pays less than the combined value of unemployment benefits and minimum income support. The AMS does not deny that the financial incentive to remain unemployed exists.

The Austrian federal government is attempting to reform the system to ensure that work pays more than benefits. Starting in 2026, asylum seekers who skip compulsory language courses or fail the final exam will face cuts to their social welfare payments.

In Lower and Upper Austria, such measures are already in place, with reductions of up to 50 percent for those who refuse to participate.

Earlier this week, the reality of mass immigration in Austria was laid bare after new figures from the Statistical Yearbook on Migration and Integration found that women from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq living in Austria have an average birth rate almost three times higher than that of Austrian-born women.

The new generation with a growing Muslim population is having a profound effect in Austria, particularly in education.

In October 2024, federal data revealed that more than three-quarters of students in Vienna’s middle schools do not speak German at home, putting pressure on an education system designed for single-language learning.

A survey at the same time by the local teachers’ union at some of Vienna’s 100 compulsory schools revealed not only systematic issues like language barriers, but also extreme incidents, including assaults on teachers, situations where parents of schoolchildren asked a teacher to wear a burqa, and even the presence of mock executions.

It has led to teachers leaving their profession — 20 a day on average in 2024 — and other educators speaking out on the “rapid Islamization” of the Austrian capital.

“Islam is changing our society in ways we do not want,” said longtime principal of a Vienna middle school, Christian Klar, in an interview with Christian magazine Corrigenda last year.

Read more here…

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Texas Democrats ended a dramatic two-week walkout over congressional redistricting, clearing the way for Republicans to pass a map redrawn in their favor as soon as Aug. 20.

The state Democrats announced that they would return after California Democrats moved forward with plans to redraw their congressional map to counter any GOP gains in Texas.

On Aug. 15, Gov. Greg Abbott called a second special session as the first one ended.

“Delinquent House Democrats ran away from their responsibility to pass crucial legislation to benefit the lives of Texans,” Abbott said in a statement.

“We will not back down from this fight. That’s why I am calling them back today to finish the job.”

When the Texas House convened on Aug. 18, Speaker Dustin Burrows announced a quorum and subsequently ordered the House chamber doors locked, an action permitted under House rules.

Burrows scheduled the House to reconvene on Aug. 20, when a vote on a redrawn congressional map could take place, potentially adding five Republican seats in the next election.

Democrats, who showed up on Aug. 18 but face arrest warrants that were issued for fleeing the state, were released from the chamber in the custody of Department of Public Safety officers responsible for their return.

“We have a quorum. Now is the time for action. We will move quickly,” Burrows said.

More than 50 Democrats left the Lone Star State for several blue states as a way of thwarting GOP-led congressional redistricting. The 150-member Texas House requires 100 legislators to be present to meet a quorum requirement and conduct business.

Republican leadership applied extraordinary pressure to force the Democrats to return.

Besides issuing civil arrest warrants for the absent Democrats, Burrows threatened each of them with a $500 daily fine under House rules.

Attorney General Ken Paxton filed lawsuits to remove fleeing Democrats from office and target organizations funding their quorum break.

Abbott, too, filed a lawsuit with the Texas Supreme Court asking it to rule that Rep. Gene Wu, chairman of the House Democratic caucus, had vacated his seat by refusing to come to work.

President Donald Trump has expressed support for congressional redistricting in red states to give Republicans a better chance at maintaining control of the U.S. House.

On July 7, the U.S. Justice Department sent Abbott a letter raising concerns that four congressional districts in the Houston and Dallas areas were unconstitutional because of “racial gerrymandering.”

Current boundaries run afoul of the Voting Rights Act by relying on racial demographics to group minority voters into “coalition districts,” where no single racial group forms a majority, according to the Justice Department.

Authored by Joseph Solis-Mullen via The Mises Institute,

For over a decade, the dominant Western narrative on the Syrian War has been simple: a peaceful uprising turned into a brutal civil war because of Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless crackdown on his own people.

But in Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA’s Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government, the Libertarian Institute’s latest book, William Van Wagenen methodically dismantles this mainstream version of events, exposing it as a convenient fiction crafted to justify one of the most disastrous regime change wars of the modern era.

His central thesis is clear: the war in Syria was not an organic revolution but a deliberate effort by Washington, Israel, and their regional partners to weaken Iran by toppling Assad’s government. 

And when peaceful protests were hijacked by Islamist militants, instead of helping restore stability, the US and its allies deliberately prevented Assad from crushing the insurgency—even as it became dominated by al-Qaeda and ISIS-affiliated groups.

Now, years later, the result is a fractured Syria, ruled by jihadist warlords and occupied by foreign powers, with Israel consolidating its hold over strategic territory.

How and why did this disaster for Syria’s people come to pass? And why were the non-interventionists who called out Washington’s lies always right about the war and its likely outcome?

Regime Change: The Blueprint for Syria’s Destruction

Van Wagenen carefully documents how regime change in Syria had been a goal of US foreign policy long before the Arab Spring. The Bush administration set the groundwork, but the Obama administration accelerated the effort, seeing it as a way to strike a blow against Iran without a direct war.

His research confirms that the US and its allies—including Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Türkiye—actively supported and armed the so-called “moderate opposition,” despite overwhelming evidence that jihadists controlled the rebellion almost from the start.

Instead of letting the Assad government restore order, Western intelligence agencies funneled billions in arms, logistics, and training to extremist groups, ensuring the war would drag on.

The leaked 2012 email from Jake Sullivan to Hillary Clinton (which Van Wagenen references) makes this reality undeniable: “AQ [Al-Qaeda] is on our side in Syria.”

This stunning admission exposes the real nature of US policy in Syria: at the same time they fought them on the other side of the line in Iraq, Washington was directly supporting al-Qaeda-linked groups because they served its geopolitical interests.

Note: For those who haven’t read the Libertarian Institute Director Scott Horton’s book Enough Already: Time to End the War on Terror, this was a reversion to form rather than a policy innovation: Washington had, as a rule, favored the fundamentalist and radical Sunni sects over secular alternatives in the region going back decades.

A War Hijacked by Jihadists

One of the book’s most important contributions is its wholesale demolition of the “moderate rebel” myth. While establishment media outlets painted the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as a legitimate opposition force, Van Wagenen presents overwhelming evidence that the so-called moderates:

• Were always outnumbered and outgunned by Islamist factions;

• Frequently collaborated with or defected to al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, Jabhat al-Nusra (later HTS);

• Received direct support from the CIA despite ties to terror groups

By 2013, ISIS and al-Nusra dominated the battlefield, and yet the US still prevented Assad from crushing the insurgency. As Van Wagenen documents, Washington:

• Pressured Jordan to allow jihadists free movement across its border;

• Supplied weapons through covert programs like Operation Timber Sycamore;

• Worked with Türkiye and Saudi Arabia to keep a steady flow of foreign fighters into Syria

This policy—arming the terrorists who had just a decade previously attacked the United States, and who were attacking US forces in Iraq at the same time—wasn’t just reckless, it was criminal.

Israel’s Role: Engineering Chaos to Consolidate Power

Another key point in Van Wagenen’s book is that Israel was a major driver behind the push for Assad’s overthrow. While the establishment narrative claims Israel was just a passive observer, the book shows that Tel Aviv had a clear strategic interest in Syria’s disintegration.

• Israel viewed Assad as Iran’s key ally and wanted him removed;

• Israeli intelligence worked closely with Western planners to fuel the insurgency;

• Once jihadists took over much of the country, Israel used this as justification for expanding its own territorial ambitions

Fast forward to today, and Van Wagenen’s prediction has come true: Syria is permanently fractured, and Israel has occupied key territories under the pretense that there is “no legitimate partner for peace.”

As Israeli officials have repeatedly argued, Syria is too unstable to negotiate with because groups like HTS (formerly al-Qaeda’s affiliate) control large parts of it. But this outcome was engineered by Israel and its allies, who spent years ensuring jihadists gained the upper hand over Assad’s forces. In effect, the war has allowed Israel to tighten its grip on occupied Golan and extend its influence into Syrian territory.

The Role of Bureaucratic Interests: Why Regime Change Always Wins

One of the most compelling themes in Van Wagenen’s book is the way he implicitly ties the Syrian War to broader structural issues in US foreign policy—particularly Public Choice Theory and the Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Public Choice Theory teaches us that politicians and government agencies act in their own self-interest, not necessarily in the interest of the public. A subset of this is the so-called “Iron Law of Bureaucracy,” which states that bureaucracies eventually prioritize their own growth and survival over their original mission. The CIA, State Department, and Pentagon all had institutional incentives to prolong the war, expand their budgets, and justify continued intervention, as Van Wagenen’s book shows.

This explains why, despite overwhelming evidence that arming jihadists would lead to disaster, the policy continued for years. The bureaucratic and political interests pushing for intervention simply had too much to gain from prolonging the war.

The Devastating Human Cost

While Van Wagenen’s book is primarily focused on the geopolitical machinations behind the war, he never loses sight of the human cost of Washington’s policies:

• Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed;

• Syria’s minority populations—Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Shiites—were slaughtered or driven into exile;

• Millions became refugees, fueling instability across the region and in Europe

Rather than bringing “freedom” to Syria, US intervention ensured endless war, ethnic cleansing, and the rise of brutal jihadist warlords.

Final Verdict: A Devastating Indictment of US Foreign Policy

Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA’s Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government is a deeply-researched, compelling, and devastating critique of Western intervention in Syria. Van Wagenen’s book should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand how Washington and its allies systematically engineered one of the most destructive conflicts of the 21st century. He methodically dismantles the legacy media’s lies, exposes the CIA’s reckless support for jihadists, and highlights Israel’s long-term strategic interest in Syria’s collapse.

For those who still believe that US intervention is a force for good in the world, this book is a wake-up call. Syria was not a “humanitarian” war. It was a calculated, brutal regime change operation that destroyed a nation for the sake of geopolitical gain. And, as Van Wagenen warns, despite the non-interventionists having always been right, it likely won’t be the last.

Washington must stop its meddling. This is a message particularly timely as Trump seems more and more inclined toward furthering US involvement in the region.

One of the enduring embarrassments for the US under Joe Biden was his administration’s handling of the military, from the poorly planned exit from Afghanistan, to forced covid vaccination, to their bizarre recruitment and training policies.  Democrats sought to fundamentally change the fabric of every vital American institution and the Department of Defense was no different.  

Military recruitment imploded and public interest in the services plunged during the rampant degeneracy of progressive rule.  Woke infiltration of the Pentagon and the Department of Defense was rampant.  Top generals were spouting Critical Race Theory propaganda, the US Army was trying to integrate 90 pound women into the Rangers in the name of “equity” and transgender cross-dressers were making TikToks in uniform with the blessing of the Navy while getting sex-change surgeries on the taxpayer’s dime. 

Military recruitment ads went full woke.  An utter humiliation on the world stage that promoted DEI activism over security readiness in the form of childish cartoons.  Noticeably absent from these ads was young white men, the one demographic that traditionally joins in the name of patriotism and is largely responsible for filling recruitment quotas every year.

Is it any wonder that average Americans were less than inspired to volunteer?  Who wants to go to war for a government that wants to destroy western civilization?

Another disturbing trend during Biden’s reign was the general wimpification of troops during basic training due to bans on traditional discipline standards.  This included the removal of harsh drilling methods like the “bay toss” and the “shark attack”.

But the restrictions were not limited to training regiments.  Profanity was also banned in multiple battalions, with threats of a “4 strike” response should anyone, including drill instructors, insult or offend another soldier.  One such ban was initiated at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri after Trump took office and word apparently reached Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has made it his personal mission to eliminate the weakness left behind by Biden.

The order was immediately reversed, and Hegseth is talking about bringing back original discipline methods.  

“It starts at basic training. It starts at our military academies,” Hegseth said during an appearance on “The Will Cain Show.”

“We are going back to basics. Drill sergeants will be drill sergeants with knife hands who ensure, who maintain good order and discipline and train up great recruits who will make great formations. Just like we need military officers with that same rigorous discipline and background. So, we’re going back to the basics, and it’s bearing fruit.”

The explanation for getting rid of these standards was less than logical.  Taking a large group of 18-year-olds, most of them living a first-world life of ease, rarely dealing with any discipline during their childhoods under helicopter parents that protected them from every potential scrape and scratch, and then trying to get them ready for war in 10 weeks?  This is an impossible task without using some extreme training methods.

DoD shills like the Sergeant Major in the interview above seem to miss the entire purpose of building mental toughness.  Enduring combat conditions requires emotional control and the ability to shut off panic reactions at will.  Many young recruits have never in their lives dealt with struggle or crisis, mental or physical.  Recreating these conditions in a safe environment requires that instructors “act mean” so that those same trainees don’t lose their composure and die easily in the field if they are ever deployed. 

Furthermore, most current serving personnel and veterans treat the “shark attacks” of basic training as a right of passage and few if any have anything negative to say about the experience.  The erasure of these long respected standards suggests that the Biden Admin and their lackeys were actively attempting to sabotage the training process. 

With Biden’s exit, recruitment has surged.  The US Army met its quotas 4 months ahead of schedule.  The Navy met its active duty goal and the Air Force increased its quotas as volunteers flooded in.  The media tried to dismiss this trend back in April, claiming that it was Biden’s funding incentives that led to the jump in volunteers and that Trump was trying to take credit. 

This is nonsense.  Biden’s presidency sunk recruitment levels to dangerous lows.  Democrat DEI policies were a cancer; their covid mandates and hostility against conservatives didn’t help.  It’s not hard to figure out why Americans are suddenly lining up to join the military – The cancer is gone.          

President Donald Trump on Monday vowed to eliminate mail-in voting, and has vowed to “lead a movement” to do so before the 2026 midterms.

“ELECTIONS CAN NEVER BE HONEST WITH MAIL IN BALLOTS/VOTING, and everybody, IN PARTICULAR THE DEMOCRATS, KNOWS THIS,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “I, AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, WILL FIGHT LIKE HELL TO BRING HONESTY AND INTEGRITY BACK TO OUR ELECTIONS.”

The announcement followed Trump’s meeting in Alaska with Russian President Vladimir Putin last weekend, where Putin allegedly told Trump that the 2020 election “was rigged because you have mail-in voting,” according to Trump’s subsequent interview with Fox News‘ Sean Hannity.

Later in the day during a presser with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, Trump called mail-in ballots a “fraud.”

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump says he’s preparing an executive order to BAN mail-in ballots

“We’re going to END mail in voting. It’s a FRAUD! It’s time the Republicans get tough and STOP IT!”

“It’s the ONLY WAY Democrats can get elected!”

“They’re CORRUPT… and TEN TIMES more… pic.twitter.com/JdOpLdKgiH

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 18, 2025

Trump also indicated on Monday that he would sign an executive order assisting with the effort to roll back mail-in voting (which will be immediately overturned by a Democrat judge), and would target voting machines – instead favoring watermark paper for ballots. 

“Now they need that money in order to have the Post Office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump told Fox Business in a 2020 interview. “By the way, those are just two items, but if they don’t get those two items that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting.”

The use of mail-in ballots skyrocketed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and has remained high in subsequent elections. 

Trump also said that Democrats are “virtually Unelectable” without mail-in ballots, and that early voting had given Democrats an advantage. 

Submitted by Open The Books

Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old democratic socialist likely to be the next mayor of New York City, won the June democratic primary with the promise of making the city more affordable. His plans include more free or low-cost services, including creating city-owned grocery stores, making all city buses free, freezing rents on stabilized apartments, providing free childcare and raising taxes on the wealthy.

While that’s worrisome enough in a city facing potential annual budget gaps of $13 billion, a far more insidious threat to a Mamdani-run city are his anti-law enforcement and pro-offender stances and policy prescriptions.

The shooting rampage in midtown – which left an office dead — put those positions back in the spotlight, even spurring a press conference in which Mamdani downplayed old comments. He chalked them up to frustration over the death of George Floyd.

Detractors say his views could flip the country’s largest city from being one of the safest for gun violence and return it to the early 1990s era when there were 2,245 murders. His supporters counter that the mayor isn’t unilaterally powerful; additional sanctuary policies and major changes to police budgets and operations require approval from the City County or the State Assembly.

But the truth is, if elected, Mamdani would only be joining a large group of city and state politicians who have taken the radical left road of supporting those under arrest more than those who are victims of crimes.

And New Yorkers are already paying them handsomely.

While they support elements of critical legal theory and so-called racial justice, they are pulling in six-figure public salaries from the Assembly to the City Council to the comptroller’s office.

Expanding Sanctuary City Status

Mamdani is inherently anti-law enforcement, be it the NYPD, corrections officers or federal agents like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His social media posts and comments while running for and holding the office of state assembly member made it clear that he dislikes police and wants to defund them. Now he claims he won’t.

But in fact, Mamdani sees NYC’s sanctuary city laws as too weak. Under current policy no one is asked their immigration status; homeless migrants are given free housing, food and pre-paid debit cards; and police are forbidden to cooperate with ICE on immigration matters.

Currently the NYPD still works with federal law enforcement like FBI and Homeland Security in cases where noncitizens have been convicted of serious or violent crimes. But Mamdani has said he would further restrict cooperation with federal authorities.

“The Trump administration is waging war on the First Amendment and our constitutional rights as it continues to abduct New Yorkers from across our city, “ he said in a candidate survey leading up to the primary. “Any effort to cooperate with these efforts is a moral stain on our city. We should strengthen our sanctuary city laws.”

Restricting — and Defunding? — Police

The NYPD is understaffed — it has 6,000 fewer cops than it did in 2000 when the force peaked at 40,000.

And it’s losing more every day.

Scott Munro, president of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, said there were 7,200 detectives before 9/11, but now there are fewer than 5,000. As of March, almost 400 had filed for retirement this year.

Michael Alcazar, a former NYPD detective who now teaches criminal justice at John Jay College, said the average detective is now handling more than 500 cases a year while also working patrol shifts.

Police officers continue to leave in droves, attracted by better pay elsewhere or frustrated by anti-police sentiment. The police commissioner has called it a “hiring crisis.”

The shrunken police force is also hampered by the new “How Many Stops Act” that mandates they collect and report data on all investigative encounters with the public. That includes low-level encounters not previously recorded, like helping a tourist with directions or helping a sick train passenger. Good Samaritanism now requires paperwork.

Unsurprisingly, the understaffed police department, forced into busy work, now have a record high response time of over 16 minutes for 911 calls, the highest times found in records dating back to the mid-1990s.

That’s as police work mandatory overtime; taxpayers have spent an unprecedented $1.2 billion on it so far in FY 2025. That’s more than twice what was budgeted for the year.

While Mamdani has walked back his years-long call to defund the police, claiming he won’t make workforce cuts, but he does plan to cut the police overtime budget. That’s tantamount to cutting the force when billions of dollars in enforcement happen beyond normal shift hours.

Instead, he wants to fund a Department of Community Safety that will have expanded “violence interrupter” programs and mental health teams, to the tune of $1.1 billion.

The budget would consist of $605 million transferred from existing city programs, and $455 million in new funding. He plans to raise it through increased property taxes in areas Mamdani has described as “richer and whiter.”

The democratic socialist also plans to eliminate the NYPD’s unit known as the Strategic Response Group that responds to protests.

Mamdani’s public safety plan claims the new Department of Community Safety will alleviate police workload so they can “do their actual jobs” and have the new department “fill the gaps of our programs and services.”

If he was interested in police doing their jobs, he’d alter his plan to cut their overtime and transfer some calls to social workers.

The police rank-and-file have said they will resign en masse if Mamdani is elected.

Releasing the Prisoners

Plans to close the Rikers Island jail complex and open borough-based jails have been in the works since the administration of Bill de Blasio, and with it has come the need to trim the jail population.

As of March, 7,067 people were incarcerated at Rikers, while the four yet-to-be-built jails (planned for all boroughs except Staten Island) are expected to hold 4,160 people beginning in 2027, at a cost of $16 billion.

This spring, NYC jails were turned over to a federal receiver — or independent manager — since jail officials effectively ignored a 2015 settlement that a court-appointed federal monitor team address issues like excessive force and violence in jails.

Jails have not become any less violent, and the Mayor Eric Adams administration has seen an uptick in arrests, bolstering a jail population that liberal leaders hoped would be dwindling by now.

But more arrests doesn’t mean more people staying in jail.

Since 2020, New York State ended the use of cash bail and pre-trial detention for most cases involving misdemeanors and lower-level felonies.

The law made release rather than detention the default in these cases, and those arrested for anything from assault, to burglary, robbery, arson, and many drug offenses, are back on the streets the next day.

In the first full year no cash bail was implemented, 3,460 adults were rearrested on violent felony charges — assault, rape and attempted murder — while their initial cases were still pending.

Of the 98,145 cases where individuals were released in that first year, nearly one-third led to a new arrest (mostly misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies) while their initial cases were still pending.

State legislators have amended the law since it passed in 2019 to give judges some discretion, although most crimes are still not eligible for bail.

Mamdani argues, it isn’t lenient enough.

To slim down the number of incarcerated, he’s said he would work with district attorneys to release more people pretrial or divert others from prosecution, according to the candidate survey.

He said there’s a need to invest in alternatives for incarceration, including supportive housing.

Other Leaders Failing NYC Residents

Mamdani’s blunt, candid policy comments in past years – paired with his proud declaration that he’s a democratic socialist – have made him a lightning rod. But plenty of current elect leaders are also radicals – out of touch with regular New Yorkers who want their streets clean and safe.

Their progressive policies, including those that make it harder for police to do their jobs, have paved the way for Mamdani to be attractive to enough voters to get him into City Hall.

When the City Council voted to pass the “How Many Stops Act,” Mayor Eric Adams, a former cop, vetoed it. But the council overrode his veto, implementing a law designed to tie the hands of police and make them think twice about engaging someone they see on the street.

Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, a progressive activist who runs the watchdog arm of the city government, backed that bill, not at all shocking given his history of stoking anti-cop sentiment during 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the city. Willaims raked in $184,800 from taxpayers last year.

When police do make arrests, oftentimes a District Attorney won’t prosecute if they’re anywhere other than Staten Island. DAs in the Bronx, Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn have effectively rewritten the city’s laws on their own.

“If you’re interested in stealing a car, the absolute best place to do it in New York City is in the Bronx,” Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said recently, referring to Bronx DA Darcel Clark. “Why? Because chances are good that you’ll only be charged with misdemeanor criminal possession of stolen property and then sent on your way.”

Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg decided in 2022 to no longer charge people for marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces. He also stopped charging for not paying public transportation fare, trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution. Bragg, who gained brief fame in his attempt to prosecute President Trump, collects $232,600 from taxpayers.

Queens DA Melinda Katz and Brooklyn DA Eric Gonzalez stopped prosecuting prostitution and Gonzalez stopped prosecuting possession of excessive amounts of cannabis. Like Bragg, they each make $232,600 per year.

NYC Comptroller Brad Lander, who ran against Mamdani, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and eight others in the June democratic primary for mayor, received 11% of votes. His latest attempt to get some good press with progressives included purposely getting arrested by ICE agents while trying to help an immigrant escape arrest at a courthouse — with lots of reporters present.

He and Mamdani brokered a cross-endorsement agreement that had Lander on the election-night stage with Mamdani as he celebrated his primary win.

Lander, as formal a Mamdani backer as can be, makes $209,050 from taxpayers. But in overseeing the city’s budget and pension funds, he’s made ideology a priority and come up relatively short for retirees.

According to City Journal:

Since Lander took on the role in 2022, the pension funds have returned less than 3 percent annually—during one of the strongest bull markets in living memory.

He moved more funds into investments that fulfilled ESG standards, divested from fossil fuels, diverted money into local affordable-housing projects, and has chosen not to reinvest in Israeli bonds. No clear economic justification exists for any of these decisions.

It’s not just in New York City where radical policies take hold.

Statewide, members of the New York State Legislature not only voted in 2019 for ending the use of cash bail and pre-trial detention for many cases, they gave themselves a 29% pay raise in December 2022.

For comparison, NYPD recruits start at just over $60,000, working in a city filled with elected officials who keep making the job less and less attractive. While cops can retire on much higher pay, many never get there, leaving for greener pastures with better pay and where officials have the backs of police officers.

The $1.2 billion spent on mandatory overtime last fiscal year represents 17% of the total police payroll. “Other” pay represents another 12%.

So while Mamdani says he won’t cut the police budget, all his proposals look an awful lot like cuts: slashing overtime and refusing to add to the police headcount means a force already stretched thin will have to do more with less.

Salaries Of Radical NY Officials

*Was $110,000 in 2019 when they passed the bail reform bill. Members gave themselves a 29% pay raise in December 2022.

Authored by Jason Ditz via AntiWar.com,

The Islamist Syrian government is trying to give the impression they support peaceful unity in Syria, with President Ahmed al-Sharaa saying he believed Syria should be unified by some sort of understanding instead of by military force, because the Syrian people are tired of war.

His government’s actions tell a different story though, as after spurning Kurdish integration talks last week and refusing to allow any Druze to attend talks on the violence in Druze territory a few days later, the government is preparing a massive offensive against the Kurds.

Seeking to capture the Raqqa and Deir Ezzor Governorates from the Kurdish SDF’s control, the military is preparing some 50,000 troops for an offensive. The plan is to mass the troops at the city of Palmyra and sweep into Kurdish-controlled areas.

The SDF has an agreement in principle to integrate into the Syrian military, though it has been slowed by disagreements over the process.

The US has been critical of the SDF for delays, and envoy Tom Barrack has warned the Kurds that federalism “doesn’t work” and they must accept integration.

For the past decade the US has repeatedly backed the SDF against ISIS. Now, it seems they are increasingly aligned with Sharaa, with President Trump praising him as strong and attractive.

The US has also drawn down most of its forces from Kurdish territory, with their last substantial presence now far south at al-Tanf. The offensive against the SDF is expected some time before October, but it reportedly won’t happen without a US green light.

Map: the height of the Rojava project prior to fuller Turkish military cross-border intervention of the past years…

That would’ve been unthinkable in the past, though the administration’s current priority of uniting Syria behind the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) may have changed things, and the narrative that the Kurds are delaying the process may lead the US to quietly give Syria the go-ahead to attack their long-standing allies.

Reading over the “Fast Casual Not Immune to Industry Pressures” note this morning via UBS analyst Dennis Geiger, the view is that restaurant demand is uneven, and while casual dining showed resilience with solid results, fast casual players like CAVA have revised outlooks this year and remain cautious on diners, reflecting broader macroeconomic pressures.

But our focus on Geiger’s note is the reservation and diner activity data collected by research firm OpenTable. Because millions of people book tables through OpenTable across the U.S., the data is a high-frequency proxy for restaurant demand and dining trends. 

That leaves us with a state-by-state analysis of the latest OpenTable trends for the first half of August, which show solid restaurant activity across the U.S., but a massive outlier in Washington, D.C. 

The sharp drop in restaurant activity across D.C. last week is puzzling. Maybe the elites in the nation’s capital slipped away for one last vacation before the school year starts, whether to Ocean City, Maryland, Rehoboth Beach, or the mountains of Western Maryland. 

But what if the slowdown wasn’t driven by outbound travel at all – but by something else?

We suspect that President Trump’s deployment of 800 National Guard troops, along with hundreds of federal law enforcement officers, to crack down on years of out-of-control violent crime, homelessness, the drug and overdose crisis, and other signs of decay in a city run by far-left Democrats, may have contributed to the decline in restaurant activity.

🚨 NOW: The National Guard presence in DC is growing

A contingent is now present near the Lincoln Memorial

Over 1,000 more troops are on the way, being sent by several governors

DC WILL be safe again! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Gs3T5frbvD

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) August 17, 2025

Or maybe those DOGE-driven layoffs are finally starting to bite… definitely something to keep an eye on.