Authored by Preston Byrne via Preston Byrne,

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has published an essay – We Must Pace The Frontier – in which he writes:

I have worked on AI for the last twelve years because I believe it could dramatically raise the quality of human life. I’ve written often about these incredible benefits: I believe that AI could cure most major diseases in the next 5-10 years, greatly accelerate economic growth rates, create a world of abundance and empowerment, and usher in a renaissance of democracy and freedom.

But – and there is always a but –

…like many technologies before it, AI brings risks, and because it is such a powerful technology, these risks are serious.

Those risks include, according to some, the complete destruction of the human race.

See, e.g., Eliezer Yudkowsky confidently asserting today that if we do not institute immediate global techno-communism, instituting draconian government control over speech and publication of a type never before seen in any Western society, we are all going to die:

There are currently zero things more important than “don’t die to AI” becoming a bipartisan project rather than a Democrat-polarized issue. If you have any political capital you can spend on this, do it now, I beg of you. Life or death.

— Eliezer Yudkowsky ⏹️ (@ESYudkowsky) September 13, 2026

There is no evidence that this will happen. Some proponents of regulation tell us that the only response is the most extreme response available: total state control. There is no evidence that this response is correct, either. One could just as easily argue, hypothetically, that the government should force Anthropic to open-source its weights, so that everyone can have free, equal access to the latest model as a personal defense AI to protect themselves from cybersecurity risks from other AIs, a “Second Amendment for AI” if you will. In the alternative, if you really think AI is an extinction-level risk, it would seem to me that the only rational response to that position – if genuinely, truly held – is not “let governments run it” but rather to agree to destroy, by treaty, all modern computers and revert to 1970s technology in perpetuity.

There are myriad policy responses. Whatever we do, those responses will require popular consent and careful deliberation. No one person, or one company, or one movement, knows the answer and history is no guide, save that apocalyptic predictions about new technologies have, to date, all been wrong.

History does provide a great deal of guidance, however, about the use and misuse of government power. It tells us that the state is in fact likely the worst possible custodian for the most powerful publication and data analysis technologies.

This notwithstanding, to address this risk, Amodei proposes

…building AI at a balanced rate that aims to ensure its safety while still achieving its benefits and grappling with important geopolitical dilemmas.

To wit, regulation.

As my regular readers will be aware, I have been engaged, on behalf of my clients, in legal combat with Internet censors around the world, agencies who think that they have the standing, the competence, and the right to tell American companies what software they can write and run, for the better part of 18 months.

This censorship apparatus is about to be rebuilt from scratch, except this time for AI instead of social media. I expect to fight that, too, at the appointed time. I feel now is an appropriate time to offer my preliminary thoughts.

Amodei’s Proposal

Anthropic is, as David Sacks correctly pointed out on X, free to slow down its research and development efforts into AI at any time, to any extent it wishes. Amodei proposes something else: that everyone slow down together, under supervision. While Amodei initially writes that the “slowdown” should be voluntary, the plan would be to progress to legal regulatory regimes – meaning, this proposal necessarily involves the use of coercive state power – which software developers would be expected to obey on a compulsory basis:

The most effective method of pacing is via regulation that targets all US frontier AI companies, as that covers even those who are unwilling to cooperate voluntarily. (Emphasis added.)

His plan has three elements.

Embedded Evaluators (aka Appeasing Pressure Groups)

The first element is for “Embedded Evaluators” –

…employee-like access to a team of embedded third-party evaluators (such as METR), whose role is to verify adherence to safety practices and commitments, report incidents, and help assess the alignment of not just completed AI models but training pipelines and processes.

There is already a robust industry of third-party “safety” overseers for Web 2.0 – what the House Judiciary Committee has described as the “censorship-industrial complex.” The track record of these entities from the last time around tells us how this arrangement plays out in practice.

“Evaluate This!!!”

One well-known private actor in this space was the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, or GARM. GARM, a commercial enterprise, described itself as “a voluntary cross-industry initiative created in 2019 to address digital safety.” Among other things, GARM provided a range of policy frameworks and guidelines, among them “the Brand Safety Floor and the Adjacency Standards Framework, which have supported brand owners in their independent development of their own bespoke, brand-specific safety frameworks to ensure that their advertising dollars do not inadvertently support illegal or harmful content that damages their brands.”

Although GARM disbanded in 2024, according to the House Judiciary Committee, during its active period GARM worked with global regulators to pressure companies like Twitter, now X Corp., to wield “significant collective power” to coercively influence Twitter’s moderation decisions, including “silencing President Trump,” and to procure boycotts of the platform if the platform refused to obey.

Presumably, platforms that follow the “safety” NGOs’ recommendations and allow the “evaluations” would not be threatened with that stick. This calls back to the way in which social media companies who followed GARM’s policy frameworks and guidelines were not targeted with advertiser boycotts – and those who did not, like X, allegedly were.

He adds:

This is the key step for verifiability of any pacing commitments, and has precedent in the banking industry, which sometimes involves regulatory “supervisors” embedded along with employees.

As it happens, the banking analogy is the exact argument leading “misinformation/disinformation” (read: pro-censorship) academics employ to justify the UK’s Online Safety Act and similar regimes; see e.g. Alan Jagolinzer from Cambridge University, who comes from the world of financial accounting and analogizes speech regulatory regimes to post-2008 financial reporting regulations.

The problem, of course, is that financial accounting fraud is not a constitutional right; speech is. In America, software development absent the intent to commit or facilitate the commission of a crime is, as a general rule, protected expression. I fail to see how standing up a new crop of NGOs to perform substantially the same function as the “Online Safety” NGOs, using the same methods – only, this time with NGO commissars possessing highly sensitive employee-like access to internal systems – will lead to a different or better result than it has so far.

Democratic Coordination (aka Government Regulation)

The second element is “Democratic Coordination,” whereby

Frontier AI companies within democratic countries coordinate to establish common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress. Some forms of coordination that would be impactful for pacing are legally challenging, and will require government support.

There are two aspects to this: (a) competition law and (b) content regulation law.

From a competition law standpoint, the problem Anthropic has is simple. Anthropic and OpenAI are the largest players in the AI market, by some distance, and coordinating their policies, procedures, and “standards” with each other risks classification as an unlawful cartel. This would particularly be the case if, for example, the two giants aligned on pricing or terms – say, by conforming their API terms so that anyone who used a model that defected from the standards in the global marketplace (e.g., Kimi, Deepseek) would be ineligible to interact with OpenAI’s or Anthropic’s software.

“Government support” for “legally challenging” coordination is a polite way of asking for an antitrust exemption to allow greater coordination between competitors in the name of “safety.” It is a problem any industry consortium of any type needs to account for and this would be no exception. Given the global scale of each company, they would likely need to get numerous exceptions, from the United States, the European Union and its member states, the United Kingdom, Japan, and elsewhere, to undertake the full “safety” initiative laid out in Amodei’s post on a global basis.

Law reform on that scale will be very difficult to accomplish; in countries like the UK, where “AI Safety” fits into existing political thinking that the state’s proper role over technology is to aggressively regulate it, and there is already parliamentary traction for a slowdown, this might be easier. It is exceedingly unlikely that they will receive any accommodation from China.

From a content regulation standpoint, the language “common safety standards as well as limits on the rate of unchecked AI progress” paints with a broad brush. This suggests that Anthropic envisages that practically any industry using its software – from manufacturing, to biotechnology, to news publication and copywriting – will require (a) de novo “safety” standards in relation to non-expressive conduct, and (b) limits on how quickly AI software itself can be developed.

In foreign countries, particularly the United Kingdom and Europe, where national governments have fewer constitutional guardrails on their power, I would expect that both (a) and (b) can be legislated without much difficulty in legal terms. If the ease with which rules like the Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act were implemented is any indication, there should not be terribly much difficulty in political terms, either.

The primary legal problem with this aspect of Anthropic’s proposal is in the United States, particularly with (b) – limits on how quickly software itself can be developed. Software development, software publication, and web hosting are inherently expressive activities. See. e.g., the Bernstein v. United States line of cases, as well as Smith v. California, Cubby v. CompuServe, the fact pattern of Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, and the related legislative history around 47 U.S.C. § 230. The differences between the United States and its allies on Web 2.0 date back to our very founding, and in both subsequent caselaw and subsequent statutes, America has chosen to protect that activity from state interference.

To the extent Anthropic and its fellow-travelers intend for this aspect of their plan to restrict American citizens from either (a) developing AI models or (b) using models and published FOSS model weights from China, First Amendment issues are immediately apparent and the weight of the precedent militates against government regulation.

Global Coordination (aka Treaties and Extraterritorial Censorship)

The third element of Amodei’s plan is “Global Coordination,” whereby

[t]he US and other democratic governments attempt to coordinate with authoritarian governments, to the extent this is possible, while taking seriously the challenges of verifying compliance.

Authoritarian governments aren’t the only problem America has here.

We live in an era in which most of the Western world, with the exception perhaps of the United States, has enacted comprehensive technology regulation statutes focused on yesterday’s tech: chiefly, search and social media.

The last great global effort to regulate publication and communications technology began following a moral panic brought about by the twin shocks of (a) Brexit and (b) the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency in 2016. The result was comprehensive Internet censorship laws in Australia (the Online Safety Act 2019), the United Kingdom (the Online Safety Act 2023), and the European Union (the Digital Services Act), plus perhaps a half-dozen copycats around the world, including Brazil (see e.g. the 2025 revisions to the Marco Civil da Internet by Brazil’s Supreme Court), Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, and more – all of which seek to control speech and conduct which (a) lives on American servers and (b) in the United States, on those servers, is constitutionally protected under the First Amendment.

Generally speaking, the censorship regimes of the West choose not to describe themselves as such. That does not mean they are not censorship schemes.

Take the UK, which calls its law the “Online Safety Act” and asserts that the law exists to keep the UK safe from the evils of the Internet. Its enforcer, the “Office of Communications,” more commonly known as “Ofcom,” is not a law enforcement agency and has no power, by itself, to remove content or make arrests; it cannot, and does not, keep anyone safe from anything.

British politicians are not popular enough to get away with carrying out censorship directly, so they outsource it to Americans through a vague and complicated bureaucratic procedure which basically boils down to this: “censor your websites, or we (Ofcom) will hit your (American) company with ruinous fines or jail time if we, in our sole discretion, determine that your platform didn’t censor itself well enough.”

This censorship is ostensibly performed to keep Internet users “safe” from ideas and expression of which the British state formally disapproves. All that is required, for most users, to circumvent the entire regime and get all the “unsafe” Internet experience they want is a free VPN with an American exit IP. Millions of Britons have done so, evidently feeling that they don’t require the “safety” that Ofcom provides, making the UK one of the top VPN-using nations on the planet in the process.

Broadly speaking, the British regime, like many of these regimes, requires companies to (a) age-verify (i.e. dox) users before they access services, and (b) ensure that users accessing those services cannot see content the Act proscribes. Whilst there are some areas where U.S. and UK speech regulations are in agreement, there are many more areas where they are not – and for many of these areas, speech the Act requires be taken down is explicitly constitutionally protected in the United States. I have written about this at length elsewhere (in addition to actually drafting the quite extensive legislative surgery required to align our two nations’ systems) and do not propose to do so again here.

A “global coordination” framework for AI will be built by the same governments, staffed by the same regulators, and pressured by the same NGOs that built the above. It is possible, even likely, that any global attempts at harmonization will collide at exactly the same point: it will not be possible for an American company to comply with European controls and enjoy the full breadth of their U.S. constitutional rights at the same time, as the rulesets will be drafted incompatibly.

Moreover, the verification problem Amodei mentions with respect to authoritarian states is, in fact, a fatal flaw with any such scheme if it has global pretensions (as the UK Online Safety Act once did); as a certified enjoyer of the defector strategy, I am in a very good position to confirm that, given a single defector who is demonstrably outside of the jurisdiction’s reach, deterrence begins to falter. The higher the stakes, the more likely it is that defection will occur.

Although many U.S. companies do, and absent law reform in America (such as a clear censorship shield law) will likely continue to, comply with foreign censorship regimes out of fear, the only parties against whom such a framework will ever be consistently enforced are the companies which are not judgment-proof in the countries which are most likely to get these laws enacted – global companies which, at least for now, includes not many startups but certainly includes Anthropic and OpenAI. In the United States, AI regulation will be subject to early and doctrinally sound constitutional challenges.

Amodei writes:

We should approach any global pacing decision, especially in the near term, in such a way that protects the lead of the US and its allies.

I do not view this as being particularly realistic. Among America’s geopolitical adversaries, several of which America is at war with (directly or by proxy) and who have every incentive to defect, effective compliance levels will likely approach zero.

Preliminary View: Who Aligns the Aligners?

If I have learned anything from our fight against European censors, it is that regardless of a regulatory regime’s good intentions, regulators are subject to political control. Regulators will, subject to that political control, do political things.

The clearest illustration from my own files is Ofcom’s pursuit of a small, highly controversial American website – a mental health discussion board, called SaSu, with no UK presence, personnel, or assets – which operates entirely lawfully in the United States. SaSu voluntarily geoblocked the entire United Kingdom in July of 2025. Ofcom initially accepted that remediation as resolving the matter.

Within days of Ofcom’s acceptance of my client’s geoblock in October and initial closure of the file, following a coordinated pressure campaign by parliamentarians and activist NGOs, Ofcom reversed its own settled position and reopened the case. Ofcom and its NGO partners then circumvented the geoblock using VPNs, created login credentials from behind that circumvention, and cited the resulting VPN-based access as evidence that the block was inadequate.

In May 2026, Ofcom purported to fine the site £950,000, announcing the penalty through a coordinated, embargoed press rollout; weeks later it escalated further, demanding that the site rewrite its terms of service and force a site-wide forced logout, of every user on Earth, to terminate the sessions the regulator’s own circumvention had created. My client, which, by way of reminder, had voluntarily blocked the UK, decided enough was enough, and refused these further demands.

On July 21, 2026, 480 days after the file was opened, Ofcom closed it, having collected nothing.

At no point in that sequence was the regulator’s conduct determined by the evidence in its file – evidence which, the file shows, was only able to be obtained from accessing the website by circumventing a geoblock that the regulator itself had earlier accepted. Nor was the regulator governed by legal reality of American constitutional law, backed by the political reality of American power.

The regulator was, instead, governed by the political mood in its home country. SaSu was one of the reasons given for the necessity of the Online Safety Act; political pressure created the censorship law to target the site. Pressure opened the case when the censorship law entered into force. Pressure reversed an approved remediation. Pressure produced a fine that everyone involved understood could never be collected.

Pressure arising from the absence of any face-saving exit kept Ofcom’s enforcement machinery running, at redline but in neutral, for nine months after the target had lawyered up and stated the American legal position correctly. The enforcement ended long after the futility of the regulator’s actions became apparent to any legally qualified observer.

The entire enforcement process against SaSu, from pre-enactment lobbying to closing the file, was a single, continuous, political act. That is how a so-called “independent” expert regulator in a modern western democracy will behave under political pressure in what should have been an easy case, and a quick settlement and file closure.

This is also what we may expect an “embedded evaluator,” a coordinated standards body, or a global AI compliance regime will do under political pressure, because those bodies will be run by humans, and human beings are (a) fallible and (b) respond to incentives.

It is probable that Amodei’s proposals are already being ingested gleefully by “Online Safety” regulators and the related academic ecosystems around the world as they look to expand the reach and remit of the censorship schemes over Web 2.0 that they have spent the last decade building – and which a handful of American clients have spent the past year fighting tooth and nail. It will not take a decade to update their censorship apparatuses to try to regulate yet another area of American tech, nor will it take a decade for the vast advocacy apparatus they have built around “Online Safety” to replace-all and begin pushing an AI safety narrative in legislatures around the United States, and around the world.

Our societies can do better than this; so too could OpenAI and Anthropic, if they chose to, but one suspects that the sort of people manning these companies’ “Online Safety” teams are philosophical descendants, if not professional descendants, of the “Trust and Safety” crowd that once worked at companies like Twitter or Facebook, and later created and/or currently staff the censorship agencies of the West.

It took nearly a decade, and actual sight by the British electorate of the Online Safety Act being implemented, for the British public to turn against that regulation and realize that the British government made a grave policy mistake in enacting it.

If OpenAI and Anthropic choose to adopt formal endorsement of prior restraint as corporate policy, those who would oppose the global regulation of AI must move quickly. The most recent counteroffensive against government censorship of the web took seven years to organize. The counteroffensive against government censorship of AI does not have the luxury of time.

Doctors at Harris County’s public hospitals have spent more than a decade treating an unusual group of dialysis patients, men in their 20s and 30s who work outdoors and whose kidneys have failed without a clear medical explanation, Fox News reports, following a Texas Monthly investigation.

A review of county hospital records found that roughly one in six emergency dialysis cases among uninsured or undocumented patients had no identifiable cause. The records ran from 2012 to 2015, and the study was published as a preprint last year. One physician told Fox the share is consistent with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology, a condition that has caused widespread deaths among laborers in hot regions abroad but has rarely been documented in the United States until now.

Many of the patients are immigrants from Mexico and Central America, often illegal aliens, and they work in roofing, construction and other trades that demand hours of strenuous labor in extreme heat. Few have diabetes or high blood pressure, which account for most kidney failure nationwide. For someone that young, the loss of kidney function can mean dialysis several times a week for the rest of his life.

First identified among sugar-cane workers in Central America, the illness has since appeared in parts of South Asia and Mexico, where many young patients died without access to dialysis. A 2019 article in the New England Journal of Medicine called it “a sentinel disease in the era of climate change,” though researchers still disagree over whether heat causes the disease or only worsens it.

Gauging how widespread the problem is will be difficult. Kidney function can erode for years without noticeable symptoms, and many patients learn they are sick only when fatigue, nausea or breathlessness signal that their kidneys are nearly gone.

Medicine offers limited help once the damage is done. No single test confirms the disease, so doctors reach the diagnosis by ruling out other causes and examining a patient’s work history. Treatment focuses on preserving what function remains and controlling blood pressure until dialysis or a transplant is unavoidable.

Dr. Richard J. Johnson, an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Colorado and a leading expert on kidney diseases, has cautioned that some patients are treated with ACE inhibitors, medicines commonly prescribed for high blood pressure, even though those drugs can sometimes worsen kidney function in people who are already dehydrated.

“Disease often progresses rapidly over a few years, and dialysis and transplantation are rarely available, so mortality is high,” he told Fox News.

Dr. Gokul Paidi, a New York family physician who has published a review of the condition, told the outlet that outdoor laborers in hot climates should have kidney function checked at least twice a year. “A simple blood test for creatinine (a waste product normally filtered from the blood by the kidneys) and a urine test for protein can catch early changes long before symptoms appear,” he said.

* * *

Tray

Knife

Notebook

AirTag Wallet

Pen

The FOMC just (unanimously) hiked rates for the first time since July 2023 despite recent inflation prints slowing…

Additionally, recent macro surprises are clearly signaling stagflation – the central banker’s nemesis…

So, a hike for credibility… but Warsh’s biggest challenge will be communicating his outlook without reverting to forward guidance, even as markets seek clarity on whether today’s likely move is one-and-done, or the start of a broader tightening cycle.

With investors forced to extract more signal from his language, the press conference carries outsized front-end risk.

In a note to clients, BMO notes two-year yields have moved an average 14bps across his five public appearances as chair so far.

The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.

We haven’t seen one of those this century so far.

Jim Reid at Deutsche Bank catalogues that there were a few of those in the 1980s and 1990s.

Outside of them, “the shortest cycle on record remains the four hikes of 1986-87.”

While all the talk is about the ‘unanimous’ decision today with the great majority of dots signaling at least one more hike this year… The Fed is extremely divided next year with four members see at least 2 rate-CUTS (policy error much)…

Quick reminder:

• In 2024, the Powell Fed cut 50bps 2 months before the presidential election with core CPI at 3.3%

• In 2026, the Warsh Fed hikes 25bps 2 months before the midterms with core CPI at 2.4%

Will Trump comment?

Watch the FOMC press conference live here (due to start at 1430ET):

Tl;dr: As the market expected, The Fed hiked rates by 25bps (for the first time since July 2023) despite a trend lower in CPI over the last three months.

Today’s decision was unanimous and the ‘Dots’ signal one more hike in 2026.

The Fed members increased their GDP outlooks, lowered their unemployment forecasts, but hiked their inflation outlooks…

The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.

Quick reminder:

• In 2024, the Powell Fed cut 50bps 2 months before the presidential election with core CPI at 3.3%

• In 2026, the Warsh Fed hikes 25bps 2 months before the midterms with core CPI at 2.4%

*  *  *

Since the last FOMC Meeting on July 29th, a lot has happened amid the supposed Summer doldrums, the dollar is lower while the anti-fiat trades (gold, bitcoin) and crude are all significantly higher with bonds the worst performers…

Stagflationary signals abound as inflation data has surprised to the upside while growth data has surprised to the downside since the last FOMC

But, the market is all-in, betting on a 25bps hike today – 95% versus 70% at the last FOMC, with a lot of noise in between. Dec odds are up from 40% to 70%. The market is pricing in 3.5 hikes into September of next year as the peak of the cycle…

So, before we get the decision, putting things in context, if Warsh were to hold rates here, it would be BY FAR the greatest surprise The Fed has ever hit the market with…

The Fed has historically always gone when market pricing is this high. That’s on top of a substantial hawkish repricing that has recently taken two-year yields to their highest since 2024 and pushed the 10-year through 5% to levels unseen since 2007.

So, what did he do?

Statement

After three dissents (in favor of a hike) in July, the Eccles Building establishment appears to have won the tug of war against The White House, with The Fed hiking rates 25bps (as fully priced in by the market)

• *FED UNANIMOUSLY RAISES BENCHMARK RATE 25 BPS TO 3.75%-4% RANGE

• *FED: RATE HIKE WILL SUPPORT `TIMELIER’ RETURN TO 2% INFLATION

Dots

In June, 9 members saw at least 1 rate-hike in 2026:

• 3 hikes – 1 (Jun)

• 2 hikes – 5 (Jun)

• 1 hike – 3 (Jun)

• No rate change – 8 (Jun)

• 1 cut – 1 (Jun)

Now in September, with 1 hike in the books, these are the number of hikes/cuts left in 2026

• 2 more hikes – 4

• 1 more hike – 12

• No rate change – 2

• No one sees rate-cuts

So the median dot suggest one more rate hike in 2026…

1 member sees four rate-cuts in 2027 and 3 see 2 cuts

• 1 hike in 2027 – 8

• No rate-change in 2027 – 6

• 2 cuts – 3

• 4 cuts – 1

Only 18 of 19 officials submitted their ‘dots’ with some suggesting Warsh himself did not contribute again.

SEP

The Fed members increased their GDP outlooks, lowered their unemployment forecasts, but hiked their inflation outlooks…

Full Redline

Key changes:

• Addition of “domestic spending has been resilient”

• Capital investment reduced from “strong” to “robust”

• Adds that “Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal”

The big question for today of course, assuming they do hike, is whether this is likely to be a “one and done” move.

We haven’t seen one of those this century so far.

Jim Reid at Deutsche Bank catalogues that there were a few of those in the 1980s and 1990s.

Outside of them, “the shortest cycle on record remains the four hikes of 1986-87.”

In something that sounds straight from the plot of “Homeland” or the more recent CIA thriller “Lioness”, the Trump administration has charged multiple members of Russia’s intelligence services with running a “global assassination network” that targeted Kremlin critics.

The Department of Justice has newly revealed and alleged that one murder plot even took place on American soil over the summer.

The fugitives have been named but have not been apprehended, and are still at large. A murder-for-hire plot is detailed in an indictment which was unsealed Tuesday by federal prosecutors in New York.

The plot was never followed through on, but a Russian dissident is said to have been targeted, during which time a Brooklyn man was recruited by Cuban and Venezuelan individuals – both which were ultimately being run by a Russian intelligence handler – but the Brooklyn man is said to have gotten cold feet when asked to carry out an assassination.

The five defendants are all believed to live in Russia, and are part of what court documents call the “RIS Network,” including a 63-year-old former Russian intelligence colonel named Yuri Khrameev, as well as his son Kirill.

According to a summary of the wild plot and allegations:

It marks the latest alleged attempt by a U.S. adversary to crack down on dissidents abroad, including in the United States and NATO-allied countries.

One of the murder-for-hire plots took place in July and August of this year, the indictment says. The Venezuelan operative and one of the Cuban operatives allegedly recruited a Brooklyn resident to take photos and videos of two locations associated with an unnamed Russian dissident, promising him $1,000 to $1,500 to carry out the “gravely serious work.” Another $40,000 was offered to “eliminate” or “disappear” the target of the surveillance.

The operatives believed the Russian dissident lived in the Washington, D.C., area, Attorney General Todd Blanche told reporters at a briefing Tuesday.  The Brooklyn resident was willing to take photos, the indictment said, but expressed unwillingness to “do the other stuff” — as in, kill the dissident. The operatives then allegedly asked the Brooklyn resident if he knew of anybody else who was interested.

“Let me know as soon as possible because I have a chain and my boss has questions,” one of the Cuban recruiters wrote, according to the indictment. “I have people in Mexico right now and they’re delayed. I only need a response to know if someone can do the work. It doesn’t have to be today or tomorrow just need to know if the[y] can.”

Some skepticism is of course always warranted when dealing with official US claims related to what Russian intelligence is up to.

$25,000 to unalive someone for being a “bad guy” who was “telling lies about Russia.” And get this, they were also “spreading dirt about my country” and “distorting history.”

It reads like a cartoon. https://t.co/BLhHLoSxUF

— Aaron Andrew Hickman (@hickman0000) September 16, 2026

For example, the latter part of the above – where a foreign agent reportedly broadly asks his asset whether he knows anyone else that can do the killing – seems amateurish, dubious and needlessly high risk.

The Kremlin has on Wednesday rejected the claims, describing that there’s simply no evidence to even warrant a serious explanation:

Until “any plausible evidence” emerges, there is no point in commenting on statements by the US Department of Justice about the exposure of a number of individuals allegedly working for Russian intelligence, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

“Until we have heard and seen any credible evidence and arguments based on something tangible, we do not consider it necessary to comment on this news,” he noted in response to a request to comment on a statement by US Attorney General Todd Blanche, who said that a number of individuals working for Russian intelligence had been exposed in the country.

New: The Russian government backed a murder-for-hire plot on U.S. soil, according to this new indictment from the DOJ.

cc @CourthouseNews pic.twitter.com/1EcQctp8Rm

— Erik Uebelacker (@Uebey) September 15, 2026

Washington has over recent years lobbed significant accusations of espionage and nefarious recruitment schemes against Russian intelligence, especially since the Ukraine war began. Russian intel seems much more active in Europe, however.

The other country which tends to get named in these reports is Iran. The Trump administration has even accused the IRGC of its own assassin-for-hire plot against the president himself.

* * * Add two to cart

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJ Media,

Democrats can be unintentionally hilarious sometimes. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) reposted a chart on X Tuesday claiming housing prices are “the most unaffordable in history,” and that it was Trump’s fault.

There was just one huge problem.

Great work, @realDonaldTrump!

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) September 15, 2026

The chart Newsom shared showed that the housing affordability gap actually widened during Joe Biden’s presidency, and X users noticed almost instantly, flooding his replies with screenshots of the very data he’d just posted as though it helped his argument. It didn’t take long for the pile-on to turn Newsom’s own post into a meme about his reading comprehension.

But the funny thing about it is that Democrats keep doing this. In July 2025, the Democratic National Committee posted a chart that they thought proved grocery prices were spiraling out of control in Trump’s second term.

The chart told a different story. It showed a huge spike under Biden. The DNC had unwittingly undermined its own attack on Trump. Social media users mocked the party within hours, dissecting the chart line by line, forcing the DNC to quietly delete the post… not that that stopped us from making fun of them anyway.

@TheDemocrats Democrats really are this stupid. https://t.co/SlkAQ1ol2K

— Matt Margolis (@mattmargolis) July 25, 2025

Then came Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who spent the Schumer Shutdown standoff in October 2025 defending Obamacare subsidies. In the process, he put up a chart on X arguing for expanded tax credits. What the chart actually showed was health care costs more than doubling since 2000, climbing at a steady clip both before and after Obamacare passed, proving that Obamacare had failed to slow down the rising costs of healthcare, let alone reduce it.

Costs have never declined, flattened, or stabilized since Obamacare took effect, and every subsequent “fix” failed to make coverage “affordable.”

Health care is already unaffordable. We cannot allow premiums to skyrocket by 75% for millions of Americans. That’s what this struggle is about. https://t.co/rHFY56HqN4

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) October 1, 2025

And then Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) picked up the baton in late November 2025. She claimed in a post (with a supporting chart) that power bills had surged 11% under Trump and blamed him for rising past-due balances.

The problem with her claim was that the utility rate spike she referenced happened under Biden.

Under President Trump, electricity prices are surging – up 11%! – leaving millions behind on their utility bills, with past-due balances at an all-time high. American families deserve better. https://t.co/OQX8zzl6DB

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) November 26, 2025

X users called her out quickly and spent the rest of the day passing around corrected versions of her own chart.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Democrats and charts – they just don’t mix.

The funny thing is that I’m sure they’ll keep trying. They think they can make an accusation accompanied by a chart, and it looks authoritative and true. In the end, they just prove how stupid they are.

Federal prosecutors have accused two former Robinhood engineers of turning their access to the company’s crypto plans into personal trades, according to Bloomberg.

Hefu Chai, 36, and Huaisong Xiang, 30, are accused of learning in advance which digital assets Robinhood intended to add to its platform. Rather than simply keeping that information inside the company, prosecutors allege they positioned themselves in derivatives tied to those tokens before the news reached the public.

Bloomberg writes that the trades were placed through Hyperliquid, a decentralized platform offering perpetual futures, and allegedly occurred over a period spanning 2025 and 2026. Authorities say both men walked away with more than $50,000 in profits.

Robinhood says the activity was uncovered internally and subsequently brought to the attention of regulators and law enforcement. Neither man still works for the company.

A Robinhood spokesperson said the firm has “zero tolerance for insider trading” and maintains controls governing employee access to sensitive information, including details surrounding upcoming crypto additions.

The criminal cases are now moving through federal court. Xiang was released on a $50,000 bond after a judge declined prosecutors’ request to keep him detained over concerns that he might leave the country. His attorney, Robert Stahl, says Xiang denies wrongdoing and plans to contest the case. Chai had not publicly commented on the allegations at the time of the report.

And so crypto continues its remarkable technological achievement of recreating virtually every questionable activity from traditional finance, only faster, with more leverage and usually with a Discord server somewhere in the background.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune revived discussion of a potential US diesel export ban with reporters Tuesday, a day after Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said any export halts on crude or petroleum products were unlikely to lower consumer prices. The divergence in messaging suggests growing pressure across the Trump administration to contain surging fuel costs ahead of the midterm elections as the global refining crisis pushed the US diesel crack spread to a record $117 a barrel early Wednesday morning.

US Diesel Crack Spread v. US 10Y 

A diesel export ban could force domestic refiners to slash production, shift profits to overseas competitors, and worsen global fuel shortages while delivering little relief to US consumers, according to Barclays refining and midstream analyst Theresa Chen.

“We continue to view the possibility of an export ban as both detrimental to the US refining complex and unlikely to provide the intended price relief,” Chen wrote in a note to clients on Tuesday.

Chen outlined one major problem: keeping diesel inside the country does not guarantee it can reach gas pumps.

Gulf Coast demand is already supplied with the industrial fuel, while pipeline capacity to move additional fuel to the East Coast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions is limited. Domestic markets connected by those pipelines would be unable to absorb current Gulf Coast export volumes, the analyst said.

Chen added that with surplus diesel backing up, Gulf Coast refiners would likely have to reduce processing rates. Those cuts could spread to the Midwest as displaced Gulf Coast barrels pressure regional supply balances.

Any export ban covering refined products without corresponding restrictions on crude would allow overseas plants to keep buying US oil and increase production while US refiners cut runs. Refining profits would shift abroad, with little benefit for domestic buyers.

Retaliation in the era of resource nationalism is another major risk because removing US diesel from an already tight global market could deepen shortages for trading partners. If European or Asian suppliers responded with their own restrictions, consumers in regions highly dependent on imported fuel could face skyrocketing prices.

Professional subscribers can read more about refined products markets here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Update(1135ET): The Houthis have released new footage which appears to confirm the earlier Saudi F-15 jet shootdown, with aircraft falling in the Marib area. The footage shows militants celebrating near the wreckage.

Below is the clip as released by Ansar Allah officials, which has since been given confirmation by some foreign and international outlets. It suggests that the Houthis have locally-made ability to down advanced aircraft, which should seriously worry Riyadh and Washington.

مشاهد نوعية لإسقاط طائرة مقاتلة سعودية من نوع F15 وحطامها في محافظة مأرب – 16 سبتمبر 2026م pic.twitter.com/rk0suliePT

— الإعلام الحربي اليمني (@MMY1444) September 16, 2026

According to the latest on the fighting in Yemen, clashes are intensifying:

Yemen’s pro-government Southern Giants Forces say that they are engaged in clashes with Houthi forces on the Kahboub front near the Bab al-Mandeb strait.

The government-aligned forces claim in a social media post that they have inflicted heavy personnel and equipment losses on the Houthi forces.

Global oil prices continue climbing amid a slew of negative headlines:

• WRIGHT: LOOKING AT USING DPA TO INCREASE REFINING CAPACITY
• WRIGHT ON EAST-WEST PIPELINE: 3 PUMPING STATIONS WERE HIT

From bad to worse for the coalition:

Looks like the Yemenis weren’t lying about downing a Saudi jet today. pic.twitter.com/2t4tTYoa6F

— Russians With Attitude (@RWApodcast) September 16, 2026

*  *  *

Yemen’s Ansar Allah (Houthi) movement has claimed to have shot down a Saudi fighter jet in a Wednesday statement, saying they utilized domestic made munitions to do it.

“The Yemeni Armed Forces, with Allah’s aid and grace, succeeded in shooting down a Saudi F-15 fighter jet while it was carrying out hostile operations,” Houthi military spokesman Yahya Saree announced.

He said the fighter jet had been targeted “using a locally made” missile over Marib – after the Saudi coalition has launched some 450 strikes. The area of the alleged downing is some 75 miles east of Sanaa.

Saudi authorities have not acknowledged any shootdown and have not immediately commented on the claim.

Overnight, the big news out of the conflict focused on Saudi claims that it had intercepted a Houthi drone targeting Yemen in a “heinous” act targeting Islam’s holiest site.

However, the Houthis are vehemently denying sending a drone on Mecca. “Our operations target its oil facilities and military bases, which are far removed from the sacred sites,” Saree said further.

The Houthi military spokesman called out the “fabrications and lies propagated by the criminal al-Saud regime cannot deceive anyone.”

Missile alerts had been issued for the population of Mecca, and plenty of old and fake social media videos purported to capture footage of a drone inbound on Mecca, but so far no clear evidence has emerged of the alleged targeting.

But the Saudi claims were enough to get Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to condemn Wednesday “in the strongest possible terms the dastardly and heinous” the alleged attack on Mecca.

“The people of Pakistan are saddened and perturbed by this outrageous act,” he said on X.

Unconfirmed image of downed jet posted by Iranian state media:

On Wednesday morning, Yemeni Army confirmed that it had shot down a Saudi F-15 fighter aircraft over Marib Province. pic.twitter.com/4nk1d1DYi6

— IRNA News Agency ☫ (@IrnaEnglish) September 16, 2026

Pakistan and Turkey just recently this summer signed a comprehensive “Mecca Defense Pact”, and the Saudi claims that Mecca was targeted by drone are perhaps intended to secure the help of allies in dealing with the advancing Houthis menace while a Red Sea ‘siege for siege’ policy is still in effect. As for the lates developments to emerge Wednesday, via Newsquawk:

Houthis say they carried out two military operations, targeting Saudi Aramco in Yanbu with dozens of ballistic missiles and drones and Khamis Mushait Air Base with a number of ballistic missiles.

The damaged Saudi East-West pipeline could still take five to six weeks to come back online, according to some estimates.

Ahead of today’s FOMC announcement at 2pm, the prevailing consensus is that Warsh will raise rates but he doesn’t need to, as tariff inflation is now fading fast, the bulk of headline inflation is driven by one-time supply shocks from the Iran war which the Fed is powerless to fix, and the upcoming change to the PCE methodology will trim the YoY print by about 0.3%, suggesting that the Fed will be hiking at a time when core inflation is the lowest in years. In fact, as Goldman and many others suggested, the only reason why Warsh will hike is because the market is now certain Warsh will hike as the Fed does not want to disappoint the market and spark a rout … thereby making a mockery of his prior statements that he won’t be led by the market (we previewed all this in great detail here), to wit:

The CPI report had little impact on our inflation view but pushed market pricing of the probability of a hike to nearly 90%, which puts pressure on the FOMC to deliver a hike to avoid the market reaction that would likely follow from remaining on hold… We expect the FOMC to make only the minimum necessary change to its statement, which will likely note that the FOMC is hiking in support of the goal of returning inflation to 2% but will likely avoid providing guidance on the path forward or the criteria for further hikes. – Goldman

But what if Warsh does precisely what he warned he would, and – ignoring market certainty and expectations of a 25bps rate hike, not to mention the resulting tantrum – he keeps rates on hold? 

To be sure, it’s hard enough to go against the market, so one can only imagine how hard it is for Fed Chair Warsh and the FOMC to stare it down. Yet as Standard Chartered’s Steven Englander writes, “there seems to have been a market echo chamber pushing up expectations despite a limited amount of incoming data, little sign that inflation is going up, some indications that underlying inflation is much lower if tariffs and other factors are removed and the prospect of more informative data within a couple of meetings.”

As Englander notes, much of Warsh’s discussion has focused on the Fed influencing the market too much, but the move from the pre-Jackson Hole ‘Warsh has to show that he is willing to hike’ to ‘Warsh will hike if inflation doesn’t come down’ to ‘Warsh has to hike unless the next CPI is really soft’ to ‘Now the debate is on how many hikes he has to do’ in two weeks suggests that the influencing pattern can go both ways.

To be sure, while the path of least resistance may be to hike, the Std Chartered strategist sees a real cost down the road if the hiking turns out to be unneeded and the FOMC has to reverse. As a result, and setting aside market pricing, Englander believes that there is a very low cost to waiting.

Ok, assume Warsh does not “rip the bandaid” simply because the economy does not merit it, and keeps rates on hold? We already noted that according to JPMorgan this outcome would shock the market and send stocks sliding:

Not surprisingly, Englander has been asked by his readers how Warsh could manage disappointing the market in such a major way. Well, as he discusses in his latest note, it would be hard for Warsh to avoid accusations of being the President’s man and have his credibility questioned harshly, but that is the Day 1 reaction.

At the press conference he could stress that he is opposed to giving forward guidance but not opposed to backward guidance, i.e. explaining precisely the rationale behind the decision and warning the market that the Fed will not be afraid to wrong foot them if it feels pricing is wrong.

Subsequently if others like Waller and Williams who are not tainted with Trump independence issues, defend the hold the market is likely to calm down. And, as a hedge, it wouldn’t be forward guidance to say that the FOMC can’t do a 50bp move if it becomes clear that underlying inflation is stubbornly high or rising.

As Englander concludes, in theory this is a second-tier meeting – there is no urgency about moving or not moving. But it is a first-tier meeting because it can define how much stomach Warsh has to be independent of the market. The long game is that if Warsh makes a strong defense of his stance then the credibility crisis is short term. By year-end he can be hiking or holding with more information and moving decisively if a hold is wrong.

But if the perception emerges that Warsh is afraid to face down the market this will be the beginning of a wash, rince, repeat cycle. Market participants will assess the weak side of the Fed stance and press that weakness knowing that the FOMC will bend.  

More in Englander’s full note “Hiking is the wrong choice.”