60.3 F
Chicago
Sunday, October 4, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 51

A Speech For The Ages: Bobby Kennedy Lays Waste To ‘Democrats’

survivalnomics
-
0
A Speech For The Ages: Bobby Kennedy Lays Waste To ‘Democrats’

Authored by Tim Donner via Liberty Nation,

No one who lived through it will ever forget Nov. 22, 1963, that day of infamy when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. It was the story of the century. Few will remember that, on that same day, legendary author and theologian C.S. Lewis also died; a story that would have ordinarily attracted front-page attention was relegated to a footnote on the back pages. The point is that timing is everything, and so it was with a speech for the ages delivered by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Republican Midterm Convention on Sept. 10.

As he delivered the address, the nation was preparing for the 25th anniversary of 9/11, and conservatives were mourning the assassination of Charlie Kirk one year earlier. There was little room for other news to rise to the top. But now that the dust has cleared from a highly emotional weekend, it is time to give this speech the attention it deserves.

Any Republican can blister the Democratic Party with criticism from dawn to dusk. After all, that’s part of the job. But when such a beatdown, such a thorough condemnation, is delivered by someone so intimately associated with that party for six decades, whose father and uncle were both assassinated, and who ultimately turned away from the party long defined by his family at great personal cost, it is worth a close listen. It will rank as one of the most power-packed speeches chronicling the decline of the Democratic Party ever delivered.

Let’s set the scene and then let Kennedy’s words speak for themselves. The drama was already thick because Bobby’s speech was in Dallas, where his uncle was murdered in broad daylight 63 years earlier, setting the nation on a path of self-destruction from which it is still trying to recover. He spoke as if he were channeling Ted Sorensen, the legendary speechwriter who penned JFK’s unforgettable expression in his inaugural address, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

This was like a great sermon where, if you stepped back and considered the content, you knew most of the facts, but they had never been organized quite that way and by a person so ideally positioned to deliver the message. So, before it vanishes into the mists of history, let’s take you through this tour de force, lightly edited for space. You can watch the full address here.

Kennedy on Fire

Kennedy softened up the crowd and drew laughs by starting off, “I’m 72 years old. And for 70 years of my life, I would have bet any amount of money that I would not be addressing a Republican convention …

“I grew up in a Democratic Party of Franklin Roosevelt, of my uncle John Kennedy, of my father Robert Kennedy. Ours was a party of strong principles, of clear policies, and an inspiring idealistic vision for America. My uncle ran on a platform of tax cuts, strong defense, and fighting communism. Does that sound familiar?

“The Democrats of that era stood with labor and working people and the American middle class. Nearly every cop and firefighter was a Democrat. Our party was a champion of the Bill of Rights and particularly for unbridled free speech. It was wary of centralized government power and corporate privilege and secret intelligence agencies. My uncle and father understood the connection between free markets and functional democracy. They stood firmly against crony capitalism on the right and socialism on the left. They were all for competition, for meritocracy, and for excellence, which they thought should be a universal aspiration for Americans …

“My family played critical roles in building NIH and CDC into centers of gold standard science that transformed America into this relentless dynamo of international research. They promoted physical fitness, and they protected women’s sports … They stood with Israel as the bulwark of democracy … They saw Israel as America’s most critical frontline ally in fighting the toxic ideology of Islamism …

“[Islamism] by its own accounts is waging an existential war against our country and against Western liberal democracies. It’s an ideology that has subjugated and impoverished and tyrannized and tortured the people of Palestine and the people of Iran, and they openly promise to do the same to us. Democrats opposed government coercion, defended individual rights, believed that government should give Americans information, good information, and then trust them to make up their own minds. Democrats and labor leaders fought fiercely in my generation to stop illegal immigration at the border.

When It All Came Crashing Down

“During COVID I watched the Democratic Party turn against every one of its essential values, its principles, and all of the policies that define my party. Democrats turned away from gold standard research and blindly defended industry-sponsored, agenda-driven science written by corrupt and captive regulatory agencies.

“And the Democrats, which were once the champions of the American Constitution, systematically obliterated the Bill of Rights. And particularly beginning with the First Amendment, under the guise of combating misinformation, Democrats censored hundreds of scientists and physicians who questioned the government’s dubious COVID pronouncements and orthodoxies [Thirty-seven] hours after President Biden took the oath of office, he ordered Facebook and Instagram to remove my accounts …

“Democrats obliterated the second leg of the First Amendment, the guaranteed right of assembly, by social distancing regulations that were completely un-science-based. Democrats violated the third leg of the First Amendment, the freedom to worship. They closed every church in our country for a year … Democrats torpedoed the 7th Amendment right to jury trial by giving liability shields to the giant pharmaceutical companies. No matter how negligent they were, no matter how reckless, no matter how toxic the ingredients, no matter how grievous your injury, you could not sue them. Democrats violated the 5th Amendment by shutting down 3 million businesses with no due process and no just compensation. Democrats shut down the 4th Amendment, protection from unlawful searches and seizures, by forcing Americans to disclose their medical information before they could exercise their constitutional rights. In a single year, my party obliterated 250 years of constitutional guarantees. The only Bill of Rights that they left unscathed was the Second Amendment, and probably only because there is a Second Amendment.”

“And then the party of my body, my choice forced citizens to wear masks and to submit to invasive and intrusive medical interventions against their own wills. The party of MeToo – remember that we were all supposed to listen to women and to believe women – they cruelly silenced the voices of tens of thousands of mothers who believed that their children had suffered vaccine injuries. The Democrats declared war on women’s sports, effectively destroying Title IX.

“Democrats condemned meritocracy openly and celebrated mediocrity. The Democratic Party became the party of elites, labeling working Americans as deplorables. Democrats cultivated deep ties with Big Pharma, Big Tech, Big Ag, Big Food, Big Insurance, and the mainstream media. They embraced policies that divided Americans along racial lines. They abolished my uncle’s physical fitness test because they said that competition was bad for children.

Trump Derangement Syndrome Blinds the Democrats

“The Democrats abandoned all of these values and all of their traditional values, offering Americans only one policy, the one policy that they stood for, the unbridled, sociopathic, and blind hatred of a single man, Donald J. Trump. And they were so confident that Trump hatred alone was sufficient to win elections that they abandoned accountability and made our government a predatory organism of monumental incompetence and corruption.

“The Democrats dismantled the public integrity safeguards and opened the floodgates to thieves and fraudsters who fleeced the American medical regulatory agencies for $100 billion annually during every year of the Biden administration. They somehow lost 360,000 children, and they turned our federal government into the biggest child trafficking operation in world history.

“The Democratic Party, in short, lost its way. I mourn the fact that neither my father nor my uncle would recognize the Democratic Party of today. It struck me this was no longer about left and right. It was about sane and insane. It was about common sense and communism. In April 2023, I ran for president hoping to summon my party back to its bedrock values. But the Democratic Party had lost faith in American voters and, utterly ironically, lost faith in American democracy. They were convinced that they would lose the ballot box. They couldn’t win. And so they unveiled a lawfare strategy to prevent an election from occurring. They sued every candidate who dared to run against Joe Biden, and then attempted to remove us all from the ballot. A lot of you think that the lawfare was just against Donald Trump. It was mainly against him, but they sued Dean Phillips. They sued Marianne Williamson. They sued Cornel West. They sued Donald Trump 50 times in 38 states to remove him from the ballot …

“Here was the Democratic Party that in my youth, the biggest issue that we had that my father and my uncle fought for was voting rights, and particularly in the southern states, to guarantee that every American had a right to cast a ballot. And here’s that same party 60 years later using all of its ingenuity and all of its power to make sure that Americans could not vote for the candidates that they wanted to vote for. They excluded me from the debates. They canceled the primaries. The Democratic Party changed the rules to make sure I could not win, and neither could the other people who were running as Democrats, no matter how many votes we got. And for the first time in history, they canceled their own convention. No voter ever cast a primary ballot for Kamala Harris. No elected delegate was ever consulted.

“A party of no kings simply anointed a queen.”

So, there you go, a speech so well received that some have spoken of Bobby as a potential vice presidential or even presidential candidate in 2028. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has become a historic figure not just by switching parties and doing the unthinkable by aligning with Donald Trump, but by challenging elite power structures that had all but ignored the nation’s outbreak of chronic disease and tyrannized the nation during the pandemic. He has established that he is a warrior with a lasting legacy, and if his speech to his newfound Republican colleagues is any indication, he would appear to have many arrows remaining in his quiver.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 16:20

Manufacturers Set To Move Production Out Of Canada As US Tariffs Hit Hard

survivalnomics
-
0
Manufacturers Set To Move Production Out Of Canada As US Tariffs Hit Hard

The circumstances of US/Canadian trade should be common knowledge by now, but the details often get mired in the swamp of political rhetoric.  When Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney describes the tariff issue as the US “waging war” on Canada, he knows exactly what he’s doing.  Carney has turned a simple trade issue over reasonable 10% tariffs into an existential crisis, an invasion, an ethnic cleansing, a last stand against “evil” imperialists.  

But getting the Canadian public riled up with delusions that they are underdog insurgents will not help them keep manufacturing companies or domestic jobs.  There is no reason to “endure” a trade war involving 50% tariffs that can be easily solved by simply taking the sweetheart deal that was offered to them.  Carney could easily wait Trump out and try to renegotiate once a new president is elected.  Unless, there’s an alternative agenda at play for Carney.

Estimates in July on manufacturing losses indicated that 42% of Canadian companies (and some US companies) would be moving at least a portion of their operations to the US to avoid the debilitating tariffs.  Some will be shutting down entirely.  With Carney asserting that negotiations are off the table, this leaves no room for speculation.  Businesses are adjusting operations for the long haul which means skyrocketing job losses for Canada.

The latest manufacturers to make announcements are:

Aeris Protective Packaging in Montreal: The company says it is opening a U.S. plant after 50% U.S. tariffs on paper and packing containers. About 70% of its customers are in the U.S. It plans to keep some manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario for Canadian, European, and Mexican customers.

Sapporo/Sleeman Breweries:  Sapporo says it will move production of beer made in Canada for the U.S. market to the United States by the first half of 2027, citing 50% tariffs on Canadian beer. Sleeman later said the move is “not finalized”. Most beer sold in Canada would still be brewed in Canada.   

RYAM (Rayonier Advanced Materials) in Témiscaming, Quebec:  The US-owned paperboard mill announced an indefinite temporary shutdown, blaming 50% U.S. tariffs. About 400–425 workers were affected. The stop was first set for mid-September, then postponed to October 3rd after new Canadian orders. The company has not given a restart date. 

Stellantis – Brampton Assembly (Ontario):   In mid-August 2026 the company told Unifor it was opening talks on a possible sale of the idle Brampton plant (idled since late 2023 after Jeep Compass production was moved to the U.S.). Stellantis had plans to reopen the mothballed site, but they backed out after the trade war with the US went parabolic.  

Northern Cable (Brockville, Ontario):  An August 2026 report says the firm is considering a U.S. factory if 50% tariffs on electric cable take effect, because half of the company’s business is in the United States.  

Some companies have already move production to the US, including Crown Royale which moved its bottling plant to Alabama in April.

A Reuters/LSEG poll of economists originally predicted Canada would add 15,000 jobs in August 2026.  Instead, the country lost 42,000 jobs; that’s a 57,000 job disparity.  Canadian economists are treating the forecast miss as an anomaly, however, it is likely that the decline in jobs will escalate through the end of the year unless a deal between the US and Canada is struck.  

If Carney’s intention is to use economic hysteria as a tool to help Democrats win during the US midterm elections, then there’s no chance of a deal before the end of the year.  Canadians will continue into winter with the threat of rising unemployment and much higher prices. 

Canada relies on the US for 78% of all export sales and there are no practical trade alternatives.  A similar but smarter base case is Mexico, which sells around 84% of all their exports to American markets.  The difference?  The Mexican government has avoided arrogant jousting with the US and is engaging in fair negotiations (so far).  They are also showing more cooperation to meet the Trump Administration’s demands on securing the southern border. 

In other words, they didn’t abandon negotiations at the last minute like Carney, and this has helped Mexico to avoid punishing tariffs and job losses.  Whatever Carney’s intentions, it’s clear that average Canadians will be paying the price for the Prime Minister’s lack of diplomacy.  

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 15:40

Senate Blocks Clarity Act As Cloture Falls Short Of 60 Votes

survivalnomics
-
0
Senate Blocks Clarity Act As Cloture Falls Short Of 60 Votes

The Senate on Tuesday failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, falling short of the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. The vote, held at about 2:15 p.m. ET, was the first floor test of comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation in the chamber. It was not a vote on final passage. It was a vote on whether debate could even begin. The answer was no, with 50 no votes and 49 yes votes. 

Every Democrat voted against the measure. Three Republicans – Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Jerry Moran of Kansas – also voted against the measure

The Clarity Act is the market-structure half of the crypto legal framework Congress began building last year, the companion to the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin rules. It draws the line between digital assets regulated as commodities under the CFTC and those regulated as securities under the SEC, puts spot trading platforms under a federal registration regime for the first time, and sets statutory terms for self-custody, noncustodial software and rewards on stablecoin balances. It cleared the House last July with 78 Democrats and then spent a year in Senate rewrites.

That result effectively freezes the bill in place with almost no calendar left before the midterms. Republicans control 53 seats. They needed at least seven Democrats, and more if GOP holdouts peeled off over bank or law-enforcement concerns. They did not get them.

The House passed its version 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee reported a version 15-9 in May 2026, with Democrats Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland joining Republicans. Tuesday was supposed to be the moment those committee crossovers turned into a floor coalition. Both Gallego and Alsobrooks voted no on cloture. Instead, the first hurdle became the last one of 2026.

Aaaaand, Bitcoin isn’t happy.

How the deal collapsed in 48 hours

Senate Republicans released what they called their “last, best and final” text Sunday night. Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Banking Chair Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Agriculture Chair John Boozman of Arkansas said the draft folded in 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats. The package included new ethics language modeled on a Tillis-Gallego proposal, edits to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act for noncustodial developers, Agriculture Committee guardrails on affiliate trading and tribal gaming, and a Treasury “circuit breaker” meant to address bank fears that stablecoin yield would drain community-bank deposits.

Lummis’s line was blunt: Democrats got what they wanted; now take yes for an answer.

Democrats did not. Late Monday they sent a counteroffer. According to people familiar with it, they did not reopen the stablecoin-yield fight – sources had described that as a “Republican-only” problem – but they did demand more on ethics (large holdings, dependent children, paid crypto promotions), a narrower BRCA that expressly does not modify criminal law, and tighter Ag-title rules on exchanges and conflicts. Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, and Raphael Warnock of Georgia said the White House-approved ethics language still needed work. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts went further, arguing the enforcement design left the Trump administration too much control and left loopholes around existing presidential crypto interests.

Republicans rejected the counteroffer Tuesday morning. “In response to a significant step in their direction, Democrats have chosen to move the goalposts again,” Senate Banking Committee spokesman Jeff Naft said. “Yet we are hearing the same unreasonable asks and the same refusal to take yes for an answer. The final text is public.” Lummis’s office said the Democratic paper “looks identical to their opening position at the start of recess.”

White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt had already signaled there was little room left. “If there are any changes, we’re talking about punctuation at this point or technical changes,” he told Crypto In America on Monday. “I view that as definitely a best and final offer.”

Three fights that never closed

Ethics. This was the political core. Democrats wanted restrictions on large crypto holdings by the president, vice president, members of Congress, judges, and family, plus limits on paid promotions. Republicans added language they said tracked the Tillis-Gallego framework and gave state attorneys general a role in enforcement. Critics said it still left gaps around existing ventures tied to the Trump family and put too much enforcement discretion in the Justice Department. Warren and others treated that as disqualifying. The Democrats who had spent months negotiating the bill, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Ruben Gallego, Angela Alsobrooks and Catherine Cortez Masto, all voted no, according to Crypto In America’s Eleanor Terrett.

Developer protections and DeFi. The BRCA language was meant to shield noncustodial software developers from money-transmitter registration. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada has been the Democratic face of that fight. Republicans already stripped explicit criminal safe harbors to satisfy her. Her camp still wanted the provision narrowed and a sentence stating that nothing in it changes criminal law. Industry and GOP negotiators called that a second move of the goalposts.

Banks and stablecoin yield. Eight banking trade groups, including the American Bankers Association and the Independent Community Bankers of America, attacked the new circuit breaker as “not a safeguard at all” because it would fire only after deposits had already left. They wanted tighter bans on interest-like payments on stablecoin balances. The White House Council of Economic Advisers published a tool arguing there is “no meaningful relationship between stablecoin growth and community bank deposit flight.” Witt accused the banks of acting in bad faith: “If you oppose the Clarity Act because you just hate crypto, that’s fine. Just say that.”

That bank fight mattered inside the GOP. Sen. John Curtis of Utah said he would vote to proceed but was a no on final passage. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Susan Collins of Maine – Collins called the bill a “moving target” and flagged community-bank deposits – were publicly undecided going into the vote. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Josh Hawley of Missouri were widely expected to oppose the bill on substance. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky returned to the floor Monday after a three-month absence and said he would “do my best to be present for tough votes.” Presence was not the same as 60 votes.

What the bill would have done

Clarity is market-structure legislation, the sequel to last year’s GENIUS Act on stablecoins. It would split digital-asset oversight between the SEC and the CFTC, keep securities law from being skirted by labeling tokens as something else, set rules for trading platforms, and try to write a statutory floor under self-custody and noncustodial development. Supporters at BlackRock, Fidelity, Schwab, Goldman, and Coinbase argued the alternative is agency-by-agency enforcement with no durable statute. Opponents argued the draft under-regulated conflicts, illicit finance, and bank-deposit competition.

Majority Leader John Thune framed Tuesday as the “next logical step” after GENIUS. Scott called it the day “everyone [had] to put their cards on the table.” They did. The table did not have 60 cards on it.

Cloture on a motion to proceed is not a funeral by Senate rules. Leadership can file again. Amendments can be rewritten. A lame-duck session still exists on paper.

The calendar does not. The House has already canceled late-September weeks. The Senate has a short September window, then October campaign recess, then a post-election lame duck that will be defined by midterm results. Prediction markets had already repriced the bill before the roll call: passage-this-year contracts on Polymarket and Kalshi ran between the high teens and the mid-30s in the hours before the vote, depending on the platform and the hour. Analysts at TD Cowen and Capital Alpha had the full-year odds in the same neighborhood.

If the 119th Congress does not pass Clarity, the next Congress writes a new bill. Agencies keep making policy by enforcement and rulemaking. The industry stays in the gap between a House-passed statute and a Senate that could not open debate.

Witt said Monday that whether the bill got 60 votes would be “a political calculation, not a policy calculation.” Tuesday proved him right. The policy text was 600-plus pages and a year of talks. The politics were ethics, banks, and a midterm clock. The politics won.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 15:10

“High Crimes And Misdemeanors”: Massie Forces House Vote To Impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

survivalnomics
-
0
“High Crimes And Misdemeanors”: Massie Forces House Vote To Impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on Tuesday introduced privileged articles of impeachment against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, accusing him of waging an unauthorized war in Iran, ignoring a congressional directive to end it, conducting extrajudicial killings at sea, retaliating against a U.S. senator, seizing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro without legal authority, and launching unauthorized operations in Yemen.

Massie read the resolution on the House floor for more than an hour, pushing the day’s first vote series to 4 p.m. and a later series to 9:30 p.m., and filed it as a privileged measure, which under House rules requires a vote within two legislative days. Politico reports the resolution’s nature forces a vote this week, the House’s last before it leaves for the midterms. Republicans can table the resolution. In a GOP-controlled House, it is widely expected to fail.

The move is unprecedented: a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee attempting to impeach a Cabinet secretary in a Republican administration. Massie is a lame-duck lawmaker. He lost his May primary to Trump-backed challenger Ed Gallrein after a public feud in which Hegseth traveled to Kentucky to campaign against him.

“By engaging in hostilities in Iran for more than 90 days without congressional authorization, Secretary Hegseth is breaking the law and must be held accountable,” Massie said in a statement. “Secretary Hegseth’s constitutional violations extend beyond the illegal war in Iran. He is abusing the power of his office to ignore congressional war powers resolutions, to kidnap foreign leaders, and to intimidate critics of the Trump administration by retaliating against them for exercising free speech.”

The full text is posted on Massie’s official House site. The resolution refers to Hegseth as “Secretary of Defense (also referred to as Secretary of War by the administration).”

The eight articles

Massie’s resolution lists eight charges. The first three concern the Iran war and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The remaining five cover other operations and alleged abuses of office.

Article I – Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §2(c)

Massie charges that Hegseth directed U.S. forces into hostilities against Iran on February 28, 2026, without a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, an attack on the United States, or an imminent threat. The article cites §2(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. §1541(c)), which limits the president’s power to introduce forces into hostilities to those three circumstances. It quotes a March 17 resignation letter from then-National Counterterrorism Center Director Joe Kent: “I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.” The article argues the war was unlawful from its first day.

Article II – Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(c)

This article focuses on Hegseth’s refusal to obey H. Con. Res. 86, which both chambers passed in June directing the president, under §5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran. The House approved the concurrent resolution 215-208 on June 3; the Senate agreed 50-48 on June 23. Massie was the only House Republican cosponsor. Four House Republicans voted yes: Massie, Tom Barrett (Mich.), Warren Davidson (Ohio), and Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.). The White House treated the measure as nonbinding and did not withdraw forces.

Article III – Waging war in contravention of War Powers Resolution §5(b)

Section 5(b) requires the president to terminate unauthorized hostilities within 60 days of notification to Congress, with a possible 30-day withdrawal window. Hostilities began February 28; the 60-day mark was about May 1. The administration argued that an April 7 ceasefire “terminated” hostilities and reset or paused the clock. Massie calls that a legal fiction and says Hegseth treated mandatory statutory deadlines as discretionary. Operations, blockades, and later strikes continued.

Article IV – Ignoring laws that minimize civilian casualties

The article accuses Hegseth of disregarding statutes and rules intended to limit civilian harm in Iran and elsewhere. Democratic articles filed in April by Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) had cited the February 28 bombing of a girls’ school in Minab, Iran, and large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure. Massie’s version is framed more generally as a failure to apply civilian-protection law.

Article V – Extrajudicial killings

This charge concerns Operation Southern Spear, the campaign of lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that began September 2, 2025. Massie says Hegseth replaced maritime law enforcement with unauthorized military targeting, resulting in at least 221 deaths. The article also alleges denial of quarter, secondary strikes on survivors, failure to rescue shipwrecked persons, and the invention of “artificial legal authorities” for the campaign. The administration says the boats belong to designated “narco-terrorist” groups and that the United States is in an armed conflict with cartels. Human Rights Watch, WOLA, and U.N. experts have called the strikes extrajudicial killings.

Article VI – Suppressing free speech

Massie accuses Hegseth of using Defense Department authority to retaliate against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired Navy captain and astronaut, for a November 2025 video in which Kelly and five other Democratic veterans told service members they may refuse illegal orders. Hegseth issued a formal letter of censure in January 2026, entered it into Kelly’s personnel file, and opened a process that could reduce Kelly’s retired rank and pension. Trump called the video “seditious” and suggested the lawmakers should be arrested. Kelly sued the Pentagon. Massie frames the censure as intimidation of constitutionally protected speech.

Article VII – Kidnapping of a sovereign foreign leader

This article concerns Operation Absolute Resolve, the January 3, 2026, raid in Caracas that seized Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores and extracted them to U.S. custody aboard USS Iwo Jima. The administration described the mission as a law-enforcement apprehension on existing narco-terrorism indictments, not a war. It involved more than 150 aircraft, special operations forces, and supporting strikes. Massie charges that Hegseth directed the operation without constitutional or statutory authority to seize a sitting head of state. Venezuelan and Cuban casualties were reported; seven U.S. service members were injured.

Article VIII – Unlawful war in Yemen

The last article charges Hegseth with initiating Operation Rough Rider without congressional authorization or an imminent threat to the United States, violating war-powers reporting rules, and conducting strikes that killed civilians and hit rescuers and other protected persons.

Each article concludes that Hegseth “will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office” and warrants impeachment, trial, removal, and disqualification from future office.

How we got here: the Iran war and the 60-day clock

The legal core of Massie’s case is the War Powers Resolution of 1973, enacted over President Nixon’s veto after Vietnam. In brief:

  • The president must notify Congress within 48 hours of introducing forces into hostilities.
  • Absent a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, those forces must be withdrawn within 60 days (plus up to 30 days to extract them).
  • Congress may also direct removal at any time by concurrent resolution under §5(c).

U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran began February 28, 2026, under what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury. The administration filed a 48-hour report acknowledging that date. There was no declaration of war and no Authorization for Use of Military Force aimed at Iran.

On April 7, President Trump ordered a ceasefire. On May 1 the White House told Congress that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated,” arguing the 60-day clock had been satisfied. Critics in both parties said a naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, forward-deployed forces, and later strikes showed the war had not ended. A brief April pause collapsed. Further U.S. strikes followed in June and July. The administration later treated later bombing as a new set of hostilities with a new clock. Massie has called that “an absurd ruse” and said the Pentagon was “pretending there have been two Iran wars separated by a brief cease-fire.”

Congress voted repeatedly. Most early war-powers measures failed by slim margins. Then H. Con. Res. 86 passed both chambers in June – the first time since 1973 that both houses used §5(c) to direct removal from an unauthorized conflict. The White House said a concurrent resolution has no force of law and would not reach the president’s desk. Operations continued. Hegseth has publicly described the Iran campaign as necessary, defensive of shipping and U.S. forces, and consistent with the president’s commander-in-chief power.

Massie has been on this ground for more than a year. In June 2025 he and Rep. Ro Khanna introduced a bipartisan war-powers resolution to bar unauthorized hostilities in Iran. He has voted for later Iran withdrawal measures and has argued that Article I, not Article II, holds the power to start wars.

This is not the first attempt to impeach Hegseth

Massie’s filing is the most procedurally serious because it is privileged and filed by a sitting Republican. It is not the first.

  • In December 2025, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced two articles (H. Res. 935) focused on alleged murder in an early Caribbean boat strike – including a reported follow-up strike on survivors – and mishandling of classified information in a Signal chat about Yemen operations. The resolution went nowhere in committee.
  • On April 15, 2026, Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), an Iranian American freshman, filed six articles (H. Res. 1177) with more than a dozen Democratic cosponsors: unauthorized war in Iran; violations of the law of armed conflict and targeting of civilians (including the Minab school); reckless handling of sensitive military information; obstruction of congressional oversight; abuse of power and politicization of the armed forces; and conduct bringing disrepute on the United States. Progressive groups endorsed it. It was referred to Judiciary and never received a floor vote.

Massie’s eight articles overlap those earlier efforts on Iran, civilian harm, boat strikes, and Kelly, and add the Maduro raid and Yemen as standalone counts.

Impeachment of a Cabinet officer is rare. The House has used the power against a Cabinet secretary only twice in U.S. history, William Belknap in 1876 and Alejandro Mayorkas in 2024. Conviction in the Senate requires two-thirds. Even if the House adopted Massie’s articles, a Republican Senate would be extremely unlikely to convict.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 15:00

Thune “Open To Exploring” Diesel Export Ban As Skyrocketing Prices Raise Fears Of 2008-Style Shock

survivalnomics
-
0
Thune “Open To Exploring” Diesel Export Ban As Skyrocketing Prices Raise Fears Of 2008-Style Shock

Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters this morning that he is “open to exploring” a diesel export ban as AAA’s national average price for the industrial fuel continues to set new highs, now topping $6.27 a gallon.

His comments follow a warning yesterday from Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike McGlone that surging fuel prices are signaling the risk of a 2008-style energy shock.

“We’ll be looking at any proposal that is a viable solution, but I do think if we have the supply in this country and we’re exporting it right now that might be one way of getting at it,” Thune told reporters, who were quoted by Bloomberg, in response to a question. “If that would take pressure off of prices, you know I’m open to exploring it.“

Any broad diesel ban by the US would initially lower Gulf Coast wholesale prices while driving overseas diesel prices even higher, as the world is engulfed in a refinery crisis produced by the Russia-Ukraine war and compounded by the mess in the Gulf area.

The latest EIA data show U.S. distillate exports averaged about 1.7 million barrels a day over the four weeks through September 4. Distillates include diesel and heating oil, so the volume affected would depend on the ban’s scope.

The surge in industrial fuel costs prompted Bloomberg Intelligence’s McGlone to warn on Monday: “Commodity spikes tend to sow the seeds of their own reversal, and diesel’s first-ever surge above $6 a gallon may echo gasoline’s 2008 experience. The US daily average gasoline price, at roughly $4.30 on Sept. 11, is only about 4% above its 2008 peak, which helped fuel the Great Recession.”

JPMorgan’s head of commodities research, Natasha Kaneva, outlined six policy options in March that the Trump administration could pursue to contain oil prices.

Several, including Jones Act waivers and SPR releases, have already been deployed. New discussion of export restrictions raises the question of whether a federal fuel-tax suspension could also enter the policy conversation to contain runaway fuel prices.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 14:20

Japanese Bond Yields Surge To 30 Year High On Report Tokyo May Hike Defense Spending To 3.5% Of GDP

survivalnomics
-
0
Japanese Bond Yields Surge To 30 Year High On Report Tokyo May Hike Defense Spending To 3.5% Of GDP

Just in case Japan’s bond yields weren’t high enough already, Bloomberg reports that Japan is considering a new mid-term defense spending target of 3.5% of GDP in line with NATO and other US allies. Such a move would send a shockwave through financial markets concerned about Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s spending plans at a time when Japan is preparing to trim tax receipts even more by cutting consumption tax to 1%.

Japanese defense officials have already signaled a willingness to sharply increase defense spending in meetings with their US counterparts, Bloomberg reported. One scenario under consideration is to match a commitment made by South Korea to increase defense spending to 3.5% of gross domestic product over 10 years, while a lower target, such as 3%, is also possible, according to one of the people.

Responding to the news, Japanese Defense Ministry Press Secretary Kimihito Aguin denied that Japan had expressed an intention to the US to sharply raise spending to 3.5% of GDP, although that is likely explained by his fear how the bond market would react if another huge spending category is suddenly revealed. 

“Japan’s defense buildup is something we undertake based on our own independent judgment, under the fundamental principle that we must defend our own country ourselves,” Aguin said at a press conference Tuesday. “It is also not a matter of starting with a predetermined spending figure. What matters is the substance of our defense capabilities.”

Well, the substance of Japan’s defense capabilities is entirely dependent on how much is spent, so…. 

Like other US allies, Tokyo has been under pressure from the Trump administration to boost its defensive strength and reduce its reliance on the American military. Takaichi has already accelerated defense spending to almost 2% of gross domestic product in the financial year ended in March this year, two years ahead of schedule. 

Until 2022, Japan had an informal cap on defense spending around 1% of GDP, an indication of how quickly thinking on defense has changed in recent years. A new five-year defense spending plan is expected at the end of this year. Committing to 3.5% could unsettle market players wary of large debt issuance, even though Takaichi has pledged to follow a “responsible, proactive fiscal policy.”

While US defense officials have largely avoided public pressure on Japan to commit to a 3.5% defense spending goal, they have made clear that they expect significantly more investment. 

“We are anxiously looking for Japan to step up,” US Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Elbridge Colby said last month of Tokyo’s defense spending.

In June, Takaichi’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party noted that 3.5% had become a global standard for defense spending, but didn’t provide recommendations on how Japan could pay for such a level of outlays.

“We’ll review both spending and revenue across the board,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday. “While keeping a close eye on tax revenue, we’ll determine a level of fiscal spending — including, of course, defense spending — that is consistent with steadily bringing down the debt-to-GDP ratio.”

In meetings between defense officials from both nations, Japan has indicated it will most likely align with other US allies but it has avoided discussing details. Some Japanese officials have said they aren’t ready to make a formal pledge and would deny the existence of such a goal if it was made public, according to Bloomberg. In public, Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi has also said spending will be determined by military needs rather than monetary targets.

Behind Japan’s caution over specifying a goal is concern over the amount of funding needed to reach 3.5%. When Japan set its 2% goal in 2022 it said it would continue to measure spending in comparison to GDP that year. Koizumi said in April that defense spending and related expenditures for this fiscal year of ¥10.6 trillion ($68.8 billion) were equivalent to 1.9% of nominal GDP in 2022.

Measured against the Cabinet Office’s nominal GDP forecast for this fiscal year, spending would come to 1.5%, he said. A budget of 3.5% using that forecast would amount to ¥24 trillion, more than double the current amount.

Spending 3.5% of GDP on defense has become a global benchmark for US allies since North Atlantic Treaty Organization members pledged last June to reach that level by 2035. As a national security hawk and strong advocate of the US-Japan alliance, Takaichi has made clear she wants to further boost the military. 

“Japan needs to proactively pursue a fundamental strengthening of its defense capabilities,” she said in parliament this year.

But she also has ambitious plans for the economy. This year Takaichi announced a growth plan targeting more than ¥370 trillion in combined public and private investment by 2040, a program that may strain the nation’s finances. Ramping up defense spending at the same time may test investors’ confidence in Japan’s ability to keep a lid on its debt. After lifting its informal cap on defense spending in 2022, Japan has made significant investments in long-range strike capabilities such as land and ship-launched Tomahawk missiles. In its budget request for the fiscal year starting next April, the Defense Ministry requested a record ¥8.9 trillion for the next fiscal year, up 0.9% from the current year.

But many items in the budget request haven’t been given a projected cost, meaning the final budget is likely to be much higher. Yen weakness has also eroded Japan’s spending power for weapons from overseas.

Even if Japan commits to 3.5%, it would lag behind NATO countries. For NATO, the target is for so-called “core” defense spending, such as weapons and troop salaries. Members have also pledged an additional 1.5% of GDP for defense-related spending, such as protecting critical infrastructure.

Japan bundles core and non-core spending in its defense budget, meaning that it would be spending less on its military as a percentage of GDP than NATO countries even if it raised defense outlays to 3.5% of GDP.

Robert Ward, Japan Chair at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said the groundwork had been laid among policymakers and bureaucrats in Japan for a big jump in defense spending. It’s now mostly a matter of timing of when Japan goes to 3.5%, he said.

“Whether it’s over five years or 10 years, I don’t see any alternative given how important the US alliance is,” Ward said.

Japanese defense shares IHI Corp and Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd closed 1.8% and 0.9% higher in Tokyo, reversing earlier losses of more than 2%, after the report came out. The biggest impact was on Japanese government bonds extended their fall, with the benchmark 10-year yield rising to its highest level since 1996. The yen weakened as far as 155.24 to the dollar.

“There are fiscal concerns, as shown in the bond market reaction, so it’s difficult for investors to take news like this positively,” said Daisuke Aiba, an analyst at Iwai Cosmo Securities Co. “Plus, there are questions about whether Japan actually has the ability to expand its defense capabilities beyond their current limited scope.”

There was more: besides spending more, Japan is hell-bent on also collecting less (after all there are votes to be bought), and on Tuesday the Takaichi cabinet approved a plan to temporarily reduce the consumption tax on food, moving closer to delivering on a key campaign pledge ahead of February’s national election to ease the burden on households from the soaring cost of living by eliminating sales tax on food for two years.

The cabinet signed off on the annual tax reform plan, which calls for lowering the sales tax on food and beverages to 1% from 8% for two years starting in April. Under the proposal, the government won’t issue new debt to finance the roughly ¥5 trillion ($32.3 billion) measure, but… of course it will in the end. The government deferred until the end of the year a decision on how to fund the tax cut. The reason for the delay: there is no other way to fund the tax cut since no other part of the Japanese govt will agree to slashing its own expenditures. 

“Tax revenue will likely rise, and also we will review various revenue and expenditures,” Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama said Tuesday during an appearance on Fuji TV, reiterating that the government will find ways to finance the measure without relying on new debt. She added that Japan’s version of the Department of Government Efficiency will step up efforts to review and eliminate redundant subsidies and spending.

“We will make sweeping cuts to wasteful spending from now on,” Katayama said, responding to criticism that ministries identified only three programs for possible cuts in voluntary reviews aimed at finding cost savings.

Oh yes, a Japanese DOGE. That should help slow down debt issuance in the most indebted country in world history. 

Borrowing costs for the Japanese government were already elevated, with bond yields hovering near three-decade highs. The 10-year yield hit 3% earlier this month for the first time since 1996, driven by concerns over inflation and fiscal spending as well as expectations the Bank of Japan may need to raise interest rates more quickly. The yield was half that level around this time last year; it closed Tuesday at 3.04%, the highest since August 2016.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 13:40

Terrible 20Y Auction Prices With Huge Tail, Lowest Foreign Demand On Record

survivalnomics
-
0
Terrible 20Y Auction Prices With Huge Tail, Lowest Foreign Demand On Record

Earlier today during his grilling in Congress, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent was asked to explain the recent spike in yields, to which his response was to blame oil, and point out that last week’s 10Y and 30Y auctions were both stellar. Which they were… but only because they took place on days when yields soared earlier itn eh day, giving buyers in the auction solid concessions and thus a desire to bid aggressively for the paper, which they did.

There was no such concession today when yields had been trading around 5% for much of the day. And without a concession, demand for today’s 20Y Treasury auction was much more indicative of the true state of the primary bond market.

And that is, to Bessent’s disappointment, very dismal!

The auction priced at a high yield of 5.420%, the highest on record since the 20Y auction was introduced in May of 2020, and up from 5.204% in August. Worse, it tailed the When Issued 5.400%, a 2.0bps tail, which was the biggest since 2024!

The bid to cover was below average: at 2.57 it was just above last month’s 2.53, but below the recent average of 2.65.

The internals were far worse: Indirects plunged from 62.9% to just 52.5%, far below the recent average of 68.0%, and in fact, the lowest on record!

And with Directs soaring to 30.7% from 24.6%, which was the highest on record by a wide margin, left Dealers holding 16.9%, not quite the highest on record but close.

So what’s the verdict? Well, hot on the heels of two stellar auctions last week, which however were only stellar because the broader market was plunging, today’s 20Y was as close to a failed auction as Bessent would like to get at a time when QE is not there to mop up any treasury mess that the surge in inflation can cause. Which reminds us: now that the buyback bluff has failed, what will be the next crisis that sets up the US for the next version of QE (we lost track which one that will be) and maybe just fast forward to the first Yield Curve Control since World War II. And why not: pretty much anyone who is paying attention will tell you that the world now finds itself in another world war… 

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 13:30

Saudis Cancel September Crude Cargoes To Europe As East-West Pipeline Shutdown Deepens Energy Crisis

survivalnomics
-
0
Saudis Cancel September Crude Cargoes To Europe As East-West Pipeline Shutdown Deepens Energy Crisis

Summary:

  • Saudis Cancel September-Loading Crude Cargoes to Europe
  • Europeans are paying between $9-$11 per gallon for diesel amid Global Refining Crisis 
  • Saudi Oil Routes Narrow: Kingdom Eyes Hormuz Export Surge After Pipeline Attack

Saudis Cancel September-Loading Crude Cargoes to Europe

“Refining is super short.   Between Europe’s woes, Russias war on Ukraine and a drop in refined products from the Arabian Gulf its really bad. As many of my amazing followers showed yesterday… Europeans are paying between $9-$11 per gallon for diesel,” CNBC’s Brian Sullivan wrote on X. 

Europe’s energy supply outlook is deteriorating after Reuters reported Tuesday that Saudi Arabia had notified some European refiners that their September-loading crude cargoes would be canceled following the shutdown of its critical East-West pipeline after a drone attack. 

Beyond a diesel shortage in the West, Europeans are also dealing with low natural gas stockpiles heading into the Northern Hemisphere winter, with prices reaching their highest level since December 2022.

Saudi Oil Routes Narrow: Kingdom Eyes Hormuz Export Surge After Pipeline Attack

Middle East tensions remain high, with Brent crude futures trading around $105 a barrel and US diesel crack spreads near $110 a barrel amid an ongoing global refining crisis. Disruptions to Russian fuel production from the war in Ukraine are compounding supply constraints across the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia’s options for maintaining exports have significantly narrowed following a drone attack that shut down its critical East-West pipeline last week. With that alternative pipeline route disrupted, possibly for up to a month, and shipping risks elevated around the Arabian Peninsula, Riyadh is seeking to move more crude through the highly contested Strait of Hormuz.

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told reporters Monday that the US Navy is escorting a large number of vessels through the Oman shipping corridor in the Hormuz chokepoint. Those escorts could support increased Saudi shipments and bolster Riyadh’s confidence in US naval protection. 

Bloomberg reported that Riyadh has already begun ramping up crude transits through Hormuz. The report cited sources, and the kingdom did not confirm it.

Saudi exports had recovered toward 4 million barrels a day in early September, with about 1 million moving through Hormuz and the balance through Yanbu on the Red Sea. That leaves the kingdom facing a substantial export shortfall.

Riyadh has two options right now:

  1. Restore East-West pipeline pumping infrastructure in a timely manner; or
  2. Sharply increase Gulf shipments (with US naval protection). 

Geospatial intelligence shows high-resolution satellite imagery of the aftermath of the drone attack that destroyed pumping infrastructure. 

“The pipeline, with capacity of 7mb/d, had played an important role in re-routing oil away from the Strait of Hormuz, and the impact of the pipeline’s closure on Red Sea exports (combined with recent Houthi efforts to disrupt Red Sea flows) will continue to support oil prices for the foreseeable future,” UBS energy expert Dominic Ellis told clients. 

Wright joined Bloomberg TV to calm energy markets and said pipeline operations could resume “very soon,” yet no timeline was given.

Meanwhile, AP News reported that flows through the pipeline could resume in three to five weeks.

Riyadh’s most immediate response is to ramp up Hormuz shipments with what appears to be US naval protection, but tanker availability remains another big problem. Also, tanker freight rates from Saudi Gulf ports to China topped $1 million at the end of last week.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 11:26

Everybody Involved In The “AI Extinction” Conversation Is Talking Their Own Book

survivalnomics
-
0
Everybody Involved In The “AI Extinction” Conversation Is Talking Their Own Book

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

Coalition of the Exceedingly Reluctant

US 10-year bond yields topped 5% on Monday, and again on Tuesday, as crude oil prices continued to move higher and overnight index swaps implied a higher chance of a Fed rate hike on Wednesday. The OIS market now has 24.9bps priced in for Wednesday’s FOMC meeting – suggesting that traders view a Fed hike this week as a near certainty.

US and European equities were broadly lower on Monday as markets digested the implications of tech CEOs banding together to plead for regulation to slow the pace of development of frontier AI models. While Darion Amodei, Elon Musk and Sam Altman were saying “please sir, can I have a bit less” we saw dissent from Mark Zuckerberg and Jensen Huang with the former saying that AI development needed to be speeded up and the latter telling President Trump that “we’re not going to let that happen” in reference to an AI slowdown.

There is a sense here that everybody involved in this conversation is talking their own book. As noted here yesterday, CEOs of frontier model developers are being criticized for seeking regulatory moats to protect their own margins. Meta already enjoys a huge moat from network effects and distribution incumbency and would likely see a benefit to operating margins from lower inference costs. NVIDIA wants to keep the hyper scaling arms race going so it can keep on selling chips.

Trump, meanwhile, views AI as a national security issue where the US cannot afford to take its foot off the gas pedal. This sentiment was recently echoed by Australia’s putative Prime-Minister-in-waiting, Andrew Hastie, who said that failure to develop indigenous frontier AI models will leave Australia as a supplicant, rather than a sovereign state. ECB President Lagarde said much the same thing as she warned against relying on US models: “There is nothing inherently bad about importing rather than producing new technologies… But there are reasons why artificial intelligence is ‘special’”.

So, to refashion Trump’s earlier warning that “if you don’t have steel, you don’t have a country”: “if you don’t have domestic AI capabilities, you don’t have a country”.

While the new economy of AI preoccupied markets for most of yesterday, the much-neglected old economy continued to serve up inconvenient reminders of the importance of real production to 21st century life. Entirely predictable attacks on the Saudi East-West pipeline, reports that damage to the pipeline could take months to repair, and the sense that even if it is repaired it could easily be attacked again ensured that oil markets remained bid. Reports from Iran’s Fars news agency that an oil tanker exploded after colliding with a mine in Omani waters did the same. The spread between dated brent and the front future has blown out to the highest levels since mid April, suggesting further tightness in physical markets as refiners scramble to secure feedstock.

That dynamic won’t be helped by news that the US is approaching the end of its program to release supply from its Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Reserves are sitting at their lowest levels since the 1980s when it was first being filled and there has been an ongoing conversation within oil circles that stock levels may be approaching minimum levels beyond which the structural integrity of the salt caverns where it is stored are threatened. The rundown in US stocks and soaring gasoline prices has invigorated speculation that the administration could seek to impose export bans on certain oil products ahead of the midterm elections in November – a prospect that Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum hosed down by saying that it wouldn’t help to lower prices.

A meeting was supposed to be held between officials from Iran, Iraq and the GCC nations yesterday in Oman to finalize an agreement to restore traffic to the Strait of Hormuz. That was postponed as parties reportedly failed to reach agreement, which is no surprise considering that the US will not allow Iranian oil through its blockade and Iran will not allow anyone else’s oil through the strait while the blockade remains in place. For now, Iran appears content to up the ante against the US and its allies ahead of the midterm elections by restricting flows through the Red Sea and, especially, through the Bab el-Mandeb. Will Uncle Sam say “uncle!”?

Escalation in the Bab el-Mandeb means that Asia and Oceania are once again ground zero for energy market risk. With that context established, Australia’s Energy Minister confirmed today that he will travel to Saudi Arabia next week in an effort to shore up energy supplies for the months ahead. Reaching agreement with Saudi officials is likely to be the easy part, actually moving product to market may prove somewhat harder.

Given that South Korea is reportedly reconsidering initial opposition to deploying its military to assist in the Strait of Hormuz, and UK PM Burnham’s indications within the last 24 hours that the UK may seek to support Saudi Arabia in its fight against the Houthis in Yemen, might Australia also be about to join a coalition of the exceedingly reluctant? If so, Australia’s PM Albanese would likely confront the same issue as the UK’s Burnham: a shortage of available ships with sufficient warfighting capability.

Sticking with the theme of neglected corners of the old-economy throwing up problems for western policymakers, news emerged yesterday that efforts to restart the blast furnace at Australia’s only-remaining long products steel mill had failed. In effect, this means that Australia is now completely import dependent for certain steel products with important industrial *and military* applications that in earlier times it was largely self-sufficient in courtesy of vast mineral and energy endowments that provided all the necessary ingredients, and the cheap power, to produce the outputs. Those natural advantages have wilted under rising energy prices and competition from imports following deregulatory moves and the removal of tariff protection in the 1980s and ‘90s.

Speaking of competition from imports, new data released by China’s Bureau of National Statistics confirmed that in August retail sales were – once again- weaker than expected while industrial production was – once again – stronger than expected and house prices – once again – fell. Taken together with news that China’s unemployment rate in August rose to its highest level since March, the overall picture continues to be once of weak domestic demand and very strong production, creating a large exportable surplus that is one half of the structural trade imbalance that lies at the heart of the unfolding geopolitical upheaval that we are now living through.

While we may hope that next week, or next month, or next election cycle will bring calmer waters from a geopolitical perspective, it is probably the case that until something changes on those structural imbalances, nothing changes.

In the meantime, got oil?

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 11:20

Democrat Judge Rules Trump’s FEMA Staffing Cut Violated The Law

survivalnomics
-
0
Democrat Judge Rules Trump’s FEMA Staffing Cut Violated The Law

Shock of all shocks – a California judge on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the law when it ordered  the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to cut its workforce from 23,000 to 11,500 by the end of the 2026 fiscal year.

A resident enters a FEMA’s improvised station to attend claims by local residents affected by floods following the passing of Hurricane Helene, in Marion, N.C., on Oct. 5, 2024. Eduardo Munoz/File Photo / Reuters

“The statutory language is clear,” wrote U.S. District Judge Susan Illston (Clinton), who reasoned that FEMA was given control over all of its functions after the massive SNAFU surrounding Hurricane Katrina – including its personnel and administrative authority. Screw chain of command, eh? While FEMA falls under the Department of Homeland Security, DHS isn’t allowed to substantially reduce FEMA’s authority, responsibilities, functions, or anything that might threaten the ability to conduct emergency-management missions.

As the Epoch Times notes further, a draft report that was leaked in December 2025 showed a recommendation to create a new “FEMA 2.0” by cutting FEMA’s staffing roughly in half and pushing more of FEMA’s functions out to states and local governments, the court document states.

The court criticized the December 2025 staffing plan that projected a revamped FEMA with 11,383 employees. Illston wrote that the figure was “arbitrary and capricious” and “appears as if pulled from thin air.”

The judge also questioned the process of coming up with the reduction to 11,383 employees by Karen Evans, the acting FEMA administrator at that time.

“In other words, rather than reflecting reasoned decision making to reach the 11,383 annual staffing plan figure submitted to DHS, the record indicates that Evans submitted the 11,383 figure first and then worked backwards to figure out how to support it,” she wrote.

Homeland Security and FEMA didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The judge did not immediately determine the remedy. The unions have sought reinstatement and back pay for separated employees and an injunction barring implementation of the staffing plan.

Illston ordered the parties to negotiate a solution. If they cannot agree, they must submit a joint statement identifying the remaining disputes by Oct. 9.

In January 2025, President Donald Trump issued an order to create a council to review FEMA, citing concerns over political bias within the agency.

The order states that FEMA’s handling of Hurricane Helene and other recent disasters has prompted the need to “drastically improve” the agency’s “efficacy, priorities, and competence,” and evaluate whether the agency’s bureaucracy hinders its ability to respond effectively.

In addition, the order states there were “serious concerns of political bias” within FEMA, and that resources had been used to support missions beyond the agency’s scope, including activities that support illegal aliens.

Trump has been critical of FEMA’s response in North Carolina after flooding from to Hurricane Helene.

“FEMA spent tens of millions of dollars in Democrat areas, disobeying orders, but left the people of North Carolina high and dry,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

He said at the time that FEMA under the Biden administration had been slow and ineffective, adding that it would be more effective to have individual states handle storms.

Aldgra Fredly contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden
Tue, 09/15/2026 – 11:00

1...505152...4,495Page 51 of 4,495

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks