One of the most controversial issues of the second Trump administration has been the release (or lack thereof) of the ‘Epstein Files’ – meaning a list of high-profile Epstein associates who were defiling sex-trafficked girls. When Trump seemed to reverse course earlier this year  – asking reporters ‘why are we still talking about that dead pedophile?’ – it caused a rift among his base, causing the DOJ to release binders full of recycled information we already knew. Whether or not Trump is guilty of anything, it’s not the greatest look. 

Well, new Epstein files have just dropped – this time from House Democrats, and Trump is mentioned. Whether this implicates Trump any more than he’s implicated himself is something you’ll have to decide for yourself…

In an email exchange between Epstein and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein notes that an alleged victim had “spent hours at my house” with Trump.

“I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is trump,” Epstein wrote in an April 2011 message to Maxwell.

“[Victim] spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned,” he continues.

“I have been thinking about that …” Maxwell replied. 

In another email between Epstein and journalist Michael Wolff from 2019, Epstein writes that [Victim] mara lago … [redacted] … trump said he asked me to resign, never a member  ever. .  of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.‘

This of course supports Trump’s assertion that he was pissed that Epstein was recruiting at Mar-a-Lago and asked him (Ghislaine) to stop. 

And in a 2015 reply to Epstein, months after Trump declared his candidacy for president, Wolff says: “I think you should let him hang himself.”

“If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” Wolff continues. “You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win [the election], you could save him, generating a debt.” 

Which of course begs the question as to why anti-Trump journalist Michael Wolff (who wrote ‘Fire and Fury’) was advising Epstein on political strategy re: Trump in the first place. 

BUT WAIT?

As attorney and researcher ‘Technofog’ points out, the emails reference Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre – who explicitly denied Trump did anything wrong. 

Via The Reactionary (go subscribe if you haven’t already): 

Of course, context is necessary. Epstein’s email contains serious allegations – allegations that were denied by Virginia Giuffre, the redacted “Victim” named in the email.

Giuffre was deposed in November 2016 as part of her lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. You can read excerpts from her deposition here (starts on page 12).

Giuffre was asked specific questions about Donald Trump – his familiarity with Epstein, whether Trump committed any wrongdoing, etc. And Giuffre cleared Trump. Here are the relevant excerpts from a discussion about Giuffre’s previous interview with a reporter:

Q. All right. What’s inaccurate about the last statement on that page?

Giuffre: “Donald Trump was also a good friend of Jeffrey’s.” That part is true.” “He didn’t partake in any” of — “any sex with any of us but he flirted with me.” It’s true that he didn’t partake in any sex with us, and but it’s not true that he flirted with me. Donald Trump never flirted with me.

Giuffre: Then the next sentence is, “He’d laugh and tell Jeffrey, ‘you’ve got the life.’” I never said that to her.

Q. When you say, “he didn’t partake in any sex with any of us,” who is “us”?

Giuffre: Girls. Just —

Q. How do you know who Donald Trump — Trump had sex with?

Giuffre: Oh, I didn’t physically see him have sex with any of the girls, so I can’t say who he had sex with in his whole life or not, but I just know it wasn’t with me when I was with other girls.

Q. And who were the other girls that you were with in Donald Trump’s presence?

Giuffre: None. There — I worked for Donald Trump, and I’ve met him probably a few times.

Q. When have you met him?

Giuffre: At Mar-a-Lago. My dad and him, I wouldn’t say they were friends, but my dad knew him and they would talk all the time — well, not all the time but when they saw each other.

Q. Have you ever been in Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein’s presence with one another?

Giuffre: No.

Q. What is your basis for your statement that Donald Trump is a good friend of Jeffrey’s?

Giuffre: Jeffrey told me that Donald Trump is a good friend of his.

Q. But you never observed them together?

Giuffre: No, that that I can actually remember. I mean, not off the top of my head, no.

Q. When did Donald Trump flirt with you?

Giuffre: He didn’t. That’s what’s inaccurate.

Q. Did you ever see Donald Trump at Jeffrey’s home?

Giuffre: Not that I can remember.

There you have it. Trump never flirted with or had relations with Virginia Giuffre. She never saw Trump in Epstein’s presence or at his residence. She never saw Trump or met with Trump outside of Mar-a-Lago – certainly not at Epstein’s home.

But the fabrications don’t stop there. From another email released today, in 2019, Epstein would spin a different story about Trump: that Epstein was never asked to resign because he was not a member, that “of course he [Trump] knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.”

But that’s false – Epstein was a member. And as we know from Trump’s own statements and from reporting from anti-Trump authors of “The Grifter’s Club: Trump, Mar-a-Lago, and the Selling of the Presidency”, Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after Epstein was hitting on the teenage daughter of a club member.

And as to asking Ghislaine “to stop”? It is public knowledge that Epstein/Maxwell were recruiting spa workers from Mar-a-Lago – Trump last discussed that issue this past summer. That was part of the dispute between Trump and Esptein. There is no allegation that Trump or anyone else at Mar-a-Lago knew of Epstein’s true motives.

Finally, there are these emails between Epstein and Wolff, where Wolff tips Epstein off to CNN’s planned questions to Trump about Epstein. When asked by Epstein what Trump’s answer should be, Wolff suggests: “I think you should let him hang himself.” Wolff further explains how Trump could potentially blackmail Trump, depending on Trump’s answers.

It should be noted that Wolff does not mention scandalous ties between Epstein and Trump that could be used as leverage. Instead, Wolff references Trump and Epstein’s connection (by way of a home or plane) that predated the disclose of Epstein’s crimes. It was a plan of guilt by association, not guilt from any of Trump’s conduct.

Add to that the fact that Wolff is assisting Epstein with public relations advice against Trump. A real upstanding member of the media.

Here’s a different slant: this is not a Trump scandal but a Democrat scandal.

Virginia Giuffre was a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. She cleared Trump of all wrongdoing under penalty of perjury. And in April 2025 she committed suicide. Giuffre is no longer here to defend her statements – but Democrats, through Epstein, are saying she lied under oath.

*  *  *

With the bond market closed on Tuesday for Veterans Day, the week’s staggered Treasury auction schedule caught up with where it should be at 1pm ET today when the Treasury sold $42BN in 10Y notes as part of the quarterly refunding exercise, in what was a mediocre auction.

The auction priced at a high yield of 4.074% down from 4.117% last month, and the second lowest since last October; it also tailed the When Issued 4.068% by 0.6bps, the second straight tail (followed a 0.3bps tail in October).

The bid to cover also disappointed, dropping from 2.478 to 2.433, which was the second lowest since August 2024. 

The internals were mediocre at best, with Indirects taking down 67.0%, up from 66.8% but well below the 70.2% recent average. And with Directs awarded 22.55%, Dealers were left holding 10.5%, the most since August.

While the tailing 10Y auction was on the weak side, and the market reacted with pushing yields out modestly across the curve, they were already at session lows so there was certainly space for the move in a day that has another midday swoon across the tech space, with bitcoin plunged all morning (again).

Dick Tracy has entered the 21st century, kind of. 

Apple Watch owners in Japan and Canada can now receive cellular Starlink service on the Ultra 3, Series 11 and SE 3 models, according to a quarterly earnings report from Japanese telecom operator KDDI, spotted by Ookla analyst Mike Dano and reported by PC Mag. The service is provided by KDDI’s Au wireless carrier – and only provides text messaging service where watch owners can’t access traditional cellular networks. 

“The number of [Starlink] connections has reached approximately 2.7 million with 76 compatible models and approximately 10 million devices. And as announced today, au Starlink Direct now supports Apple Watch.”https://t.co/BSLvkSEp0x via KDDI

— Mike Dano (@mikeddano) November 6, 2025

Au also updated its support page to note the new compatibility between the Apple Watch and SpaceX’s cellular Starlink. All Japanese customers need to do is buy the cellular version of the watch and sign up for Au’s Starlink Direct service. 

In Canada, SpaceX partner, Rogers Communications, has also added support for the Apple Watch – with Cellular Starlink now available as a free beta to all Canadian users. 

PC Mag suggests that T-Mobile, SpaceX’s partner in the US, could bring the same capability stateside – where it already supports ground-based cellular plans for the Apple Watch, and provides T-Satellite service for over 70 phone models, including the iPhone 13 and iPhone Air. 

The capability would also enable more Apple Watch owners to receive satellite connectivity whenever they travel through a cellular dead zone. In September, when Apple introduced its new smartwatch models, only the Apple Watch Ultra 3 featured built-in satellite connectivity for emergency response. The same model also features satellite-powered texting and location sharing, but only if you have an active carrier plan associated with the watch. -PC Mag

Meanwhile, Apple satellite partner Globalstar is considering selling itself to SpaceX, suggesting that the cellular Starlink system may be about to rapidly expand. The technology can support not only satellite-powered texting, but general data transmission to a growing number of Android and iOS apps – potentially even video calls. 

h/t Capital.news

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Here we go again. The overnight funding markets are showing signs of stress, and the scent of QE is in the air.

Per New York Fed President John Williams:

Based on recent sustained repo market pressures and other growing signs of reserves moving from abundant to ample, I expect that it will not be long before we reach ample reserves. When that happens, it will then be time to begin the process of gradual purchases of assets.

The question everyone should be asking is: why have the capital markets become so reliant on the Fed’s liquidity? The answer goes back to the 2008 financial crisis.

Before 2008, the private market, not the Fed, was the primary source of liquidity. The Fed was rarely called upon to support liquidity. Since then, the Fed has seemingly constantly tinkered with its policy to manage liquidity. As some correctly say, the Fed has shifted from lender of last resort to the lender of only resort!

Considering the significant impact liquidity has across all asset classes, it’s essential to appreciate this relatively new dynamic and understand why the Fed, rather than the private market, has become the primary liquidity manager of the financial system. Consequently, Fed policy, not free markets, now plays a crucial role in forecasting how today’s speculative excesses might return to their normal levels. Will it be a pop, a slow leak, or will the Fed keep bubbles afloat at any cost?

The New Fed Era

Before explaining how Fed policy has evolved since the financial crisis, we want to highlight two charts that illustrate the difference in Fed policies before and after 2008.

The first graph below charts the size of the Fed’s balance sheet since 2002. Before 2008, the Fed’s assets were growing at a slow and steady 4% pace. Not surprisingly, the 4% growth was roughly in line with economic growth. After 2008, the amount of its assets surged, and the volatility of its holdings increased significantly. The second graph, showing bank reserves held at the Fed, tells a similar story —calm before the crisis, followed by growth and volatility after the crisis.  

Clearly, something changed in 2008. Let’s explore what that is, and in doing so, we can better appreciate the Fed’s expanded role and why its policies have become much more closely integrated with the gyrations of financial markets.

Managing Via Reserves Not Fed Funds (Post-QE World)

Before 2008, banks held minimal excess reserves. Instead, they mainly met their liquidity needs by lending and borrowing reserves with other banks. Many of these transactions took place in the overnight Fed Funds market. The Fed did not set the Fed Funds rate back then, nor does it now. However, before the financial crisis, it guided banks toward its target rate through daily purchases and sales of Treasury securities.

In 2008, the Fed introduced Quantitative Easing (QE). QE entails consistently purchasing securities regardless of liquidity conditions. Before QE, buying or selling was based on daily liquidity conditions.  Because the Fed buys assets from banks with reserves, total reserves in the banking system have been grossly elevated since 2008.

The impact of QE on the financial markets and economy is two-fold.

• First, the Fed removes securities from the market, allowing the liquidity in those securities to flow to other assets.

• Second, the new reserves on bank balance sheets can be used to support loan growth. The more reserves the banks hold, the more liquidity they can provide. We say “can” because the bank still must be willing and able to provide liquidity.

Today, to maintain control of the overnight financing markets, the Fed pays interest on reserve balances (IORB). The Fed sets the IORB rate, which serves as a floor for the Fed Funds rate because banks will not lend their reserves for less than they can earn risk-free from the Fed.

Thus, in the post-QE world, the level of bank reserves and the Fed’s IORB rate are predominant determinants of overnight liquidity. The graph below shows the stark increase and volatility in reserve balances following the first round of QE in 2008.

Regulations Changed The Overnight Markets

Before 2008, the private sector repo markets were the core plumbing of the short-term funding markets. Fed Funds is unsecured lending between banks, whereas repo is secured (collateralized) funding between all financial institutions. It is estimated that the daily volume of repo transactions was over $10 trillion before the crisis. Money market funds and other large holders of cash would invest their cash balances in repo; thus, private firms provided the capital markets with a steady, dependable stream of liquidity.

Following the near collapse of the entire banking system in 2008, the government and global banking regulatory agencies enacted a series of regulations that made it more expensive for banks and funds to lend short-term cash. Let’s review a few of those that have changed the liquidity landscape.

Basel III (global banking regulations)

Basel III is a set of global banking regulations written by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. The Committee is effectively a consortium of the world’s central bankers. While Basel has no legal jurisdiction over US banks, its rules are often fully approved and implemented by the Fed, FDIC, and OCC. In 2013, the Fed finalized Basel III capital rules. Within those rules, the following two changes had significant impacts, limiting and disincentivizing those who could provide the market liquidity.

Liquidity Coverage Ratio (LCR): Banks must hold 30 days of “high-quality liquid assets” (HQLA) to survive outflows. Repo lending counts as an outflow and is penalized. This rule critically disincentivized bank lending in the repo markets.

Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR): The rule implements capital charges against all assets, including risk-free US Treasuries and repos. Prior to SLR, there was effectively a zero-capital charge for Treasuries and Repo.  Therefore, because repo provides no risk-weighted benefit to meet capital requirements, banks have significantly shrunk their repo books since the SLR became effective.

A report from the New York Fed – Market-Function Asset Purchases, underscores that the SLR has been a key factor limiting dealer repo volumes, especially in liquidity-stressed markets.

Due to SLR and LCR, the liquidity-shock-absorbing role has shifted from private dealers to the Fed. 

Proprietary Trading Rules

The post-crisis Volcker rules banned banks from proprietary (prop) trading. Prop trading is when banks trade and manage their own assets. Before 2008, dealer prop desks would absorb cheap securities in stressed markets and provide the market with the liquidity it demanded when overnight rates were abnormally high. After the Volcker Rule took effect, this source of private market liquidity shrank. Per New York Fed data, dealer net repo transactions went from approximately $5.5 trillion to less than half of that today.

Money Market Reforms

Prime money market funds, unlike government money market funds, invest in government securities, as well as corporate and bank securities. Accordingly, they can offer higher yields than government funds, but they also entail a small degree of risk.

The risk of a loss in prime funds never materialized until September 16, 2008. At that time, the Reserve Primary Money Market Fund “broke the buck.” In other words, its net asset value fell below $1.00 or 100% of the shareholders’ money.

To differentiate prime money market funds from government money market funds, the SEC changed the landscape for prime funds. Now, prime funds can stop or slow redemptions if necessary and/or charge redemption fees in times of stress. The SEC also required funds to float their NAVs, essentially telling the public that full repayment of their investment is not guaranteed.

Given that money market funds are considered by many to be a cash equivalent, few money market fund holders had an appetite for risk. Accordingly, the use of prime funds collapsed. Much of the capital within those funds, provided liquidity to the private markets, shifted to government funds that mostly park money at the Fed or in Treasury securities rather than lend privately.

Pick Your Poison- Fed Or Free Market

Before 2008, when free markets largely determined liquidity conditions, speculative bubbles would form and eventually burst when liquidity was no longer sufficient to support highly speculative valuations and high leverage.

Today, those same bubbles form. However, with the Fed at the helm of liquidity, how and when those bubbles burst is not entirely clear. For example, while the Fed is not likely thrilled with the current extreme valuations, it also recognizes that a normalization of valuations and a broad de-risking event could cause economic hardship and potentially harm to the banking system. It will not sign up to preside over that.

Is the Fed capable of letting a bubble slowly leak? Given that this post-pandemic bubble is our first experience under the new Fed regime, we will have to wait and see.

Summary

Knowingly or unknowingly, post-financial crisis rules and regulations have kneecapped many of the old private-market liquidity providers. Without their capital and balance sheets, the Fed has become the primary source of market liquidity. To wit, consider the following quote from Jerome Powell in 2021:

In a stress scenario today, the Federal Reserve is the only entity with the balance sheet to absorb the shock.

While there is limited experience with the new monetary regime, we have learned that the Fed doesn’t have a straightforward way to assess liquidity conditions.  For instance, the Fed was caught off guard in 2019 when overnight funding markets froze amid a liquidity squeeze. Conversely, in 2020 and 2021, in reaction to the pandemic, the Fed grossly oversupplied the markets with liquidity. In fact, it had to create the overnight reverse repurchase program to remove the excess reserves from the market. QT was also enacted to help.

As we share below, those excess reserves are now gone, and not surprisingly, liquidity stress is occurring.

In our view, QE or another policy move to increase bank reserves is imminent. The alternative is a deleveraging event, which would cause economic and financial market chaos.

In the Fox News clip from The Ingraham Angle, President Trump touched on a range of topics, but affordability emerged as the dominant theme, one that’s already capturing national attention and poised to define the 2026 midterm election cycle. 

In Trump’s interview with Laura Ingraham, the president dismissed Democratic talking points on costs, noting only beef (with thriving ranchers) and coffee remain high. He plans to lower coffee tariffs to import more. 

“We’re going to take care of all this stuff very quickly, very easily. It’s surgical. It’s beautiful to watch. But our costs are way lower now,” Trump said, adding that Walmart’s report of a Thanksgiving meal that is 25% cheaper than last year’s under the Biden-Harris regime serves as evidence of declining prices.

Trump told Ingraham:

And if you remember, when I first came in, the first two days I had a news conference. Eggs—they were hitting me with eggs. Eggs had quadrupled in price, and they’re screaming at me... “Say I just got here. I didn’t know about eggs.” And Brooke Rollins, our agricultural commissioner—did a secretary—did [a] great job. And now eggs are what they were. We got eggs down.

He continued:

Much less expensive under Trump. And you will say, “I haven’t been here long. Nine months is not a long time.” But look at what we’ve done to energy. Look at the price of gasoline—going from $4.50, $2.50 or $2.70. It’s gonna be $2 gasoline. People want affordable? Well, the economy is my thing. We have the greatest economy in history.

🚨TRUMP: “The economy is MY THING.”🚨@POTUS told me he’s cutting tariffs to bring COFFEE prices down and expects GAS at $2 a gallon.

Real relief — not slogans. pic.twitter.com/hrOGKi9NKG

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) November 12, 2025

Trump’s message is crystal clear: the affordability theme will accelerate into overdrive as the midterm election cycle approaches. This renewed focus follows Democrats’ recent victories in several key races, most notably the victory of a Democratic Socialist as New York City’s next mayor. Zohran Mamdani is aligned with a Marxist agenda that threatens to squander the wealth of one of America’s most capitalist-driven cities. 

Given the DSA’s hostile takeover of the Democratic Party, it’s likely that the administration will escalate its messaging and counter-propaganda efforts to confront Marxist movements that aim to dismantle the family unit, undermine Christianity, and, most critically, destroy the nation from within through an ‘invisible insurrection’ by a leftist billionaire funded network of NGOs. 

The Trump administration’s urgency in addressing affordability, most likely through executive orders given Congress’s slow pace, aims to counter the Democratic Socialists’ growing influence among young voters. The strategy seeks to undercut leftist appeals built around promises of free public transit, state-subsidized housing in dense urban concrete jungles, and government-run supermarkets offering free food.

It’s time to “Make Affordability Great Again.” The Trump administration has been undoing the Democratic Party’s nation-killing policies that not just fueled generational high inflation, but also allowed for an invasion of ten million or more illegal aliens. The Inflation Reduction Act, Obamacare, and climate crisis policies have all fueled inflation, making life increasingly difficult for young Americans. The administration’s priority is to reverse these failed policies, restore affordability, and empower young people to build stable lives and families. This will be a central focus heading into 2026 and beyond.

Update (1200ET):

NASA postponed the launch of the New Glenn heavy-lift orbital rocket, developed by Blue Origin, on Wednesday due to “highly elevated solar activity.”

“New Glenn is ready to launch. However, due to highly elevated solar activity and its potential effects on the ESCAPADE spacecraft, NASA is postponing launch until space weather conditions improve,” Blue Origin wrote on its X account. 

NG-2 Update: New Glenn is ready to launch. However, due to highly elevated solar activity and its potential effects on the ESCAPADE spacecraft, NASA is postponing launch until space weather conditions improve. We are currently assessing opportunities to establish our next launch…

— Blue Origin (@blueorigin) November 12, 2025

Last night, a severe G4 geomagnetic storm hit Earth’s atmosphere. A second round is expected today, with a third CME that could be G3/G4 strength. 

“Arriving earlier than expected, two CMEs struck Earth on Nov. 11th. The closely-spaced sequence of impacts produced a severe (G4) geomagnetic storm. Auroras spread across almost every US state with sightings as far south as Florida, California, Texas, Arizona and Alabama,” SpaceWeatherNews wrote in a note earlier. 

Gemma Richardson, a solar storm expert with the British Geological Survey, told Sky News, “Space weather can have a real impact on the lives of people across the planet.”

“BGS records real-time data of geomagnetic conditions, underpinning the national forecast service. Our data suggests that this event could be one of the biggest storms we’ve seen in 20 years,” Richardson noted. 

*   *   * 

Three coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that erupted from the sun in recent days are expected to merge into a powerful “cannibal CME” and smash into the Earth’s atmosphere on Wednesday, triggering intense geomagnetic activity that could make the northern lights visible across much of the United States.

“As many as three CMEs are approaching Earth, including today’s fast-moving X5-class CME from sunspot 4274,” SpaceWeatherNews wrote in a report on its website. 

Here’s a close-up movie of the X5.1 flare from AR 4274, followed by a stunning post-eruption arcade formation. One of the most eruptive events of this solar cycle. pic.twitter.com/VvT6kCeCBZ

— Edward.Vijayakumar (@edwanx) November 11, 2025

The website that tracks solar flares continued, “There is a chance that the three CMEs will merge into a single ‘Cannibal CME,’ a potent type of storm cloud that could cause a severe G4-class geomagnetic storm when it arrives on Nov. 12.”

Via SolarHam data. 

SpaceWeatherNews said if the geomagnetic storm develops, northern lights would descend to mid-latitudes and become visible in more than half of the Lower 48.

Now this is very alarming. The report continued:

A ‘GROUND LEVEL EVENT’ IS UNDERWAY: Today’s X5-class solar flare from sunspot 4274 hurled a fuisillade of energetic protons toward Earth. Some of the particles are so powerful, they are penetrating the atmosphere all the way to the ground. “This is a very significant event,” says Professor Clive Dyer of the Surrey Space Centre. “Neutron monitors around the world are detecting it.”

This is called a Ground Level Event (GLE). GLEs of this magnitude are rare; they happen only once or twice every solar cycle. “This one is comparable to the GLE of Dec. 13, 2006,” says Dyer. That makes it a ~20-year event.

For comparison, during the 2006 GLE, passengers on high-latitude air flights experienced a peak dose rate of 25-30 microSieverts per hour at cruising altitude. This translated to an estimated 20% increase in the total effective radiation dose. Something similar may be happening now.

“This is a very significant event and analysis will help us prepare for larger events such as a repeat of Feb. 23 1956, which is soon to have its 70th anniversary and gave a thousandfold increase in radiation at 40000 feet,” says Dyer.

NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center ranks the incoming solar event a 4 out of 5 on NOAA’s space weather scale, meaning it’s classified as “Severe.”

SWPC warned, “Detrimental impacts to some of our critical infrastructure technology are possible, but mitigation is possible.” 

A Carrington-class storm would be absolutely catastrophic for power grids and the AI infrastructure being installed at lightning pace. And there are others. 

… Which US power grid is most at risk? Find out here.

Also, Solar Cycle 25 has peaked (more here). 

During my climate talks, some have trouble visualizing simultaneous overlapping solar cycles — so I created this diagram. pic.twitter.com/laB1ItLsNO

— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) February 3, 2024

Triple Solar Storm Alert – X5 Solar Flare/BIG CME

Will Starlink’s satellite internet service experience disruptions tomorrow?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

President Trump is boldly facing the problem of high meat prices but also dealing with the financial strains on farmers themselves.

The issue is reconciling the two.

Lower prices are great for consumers but also add to the financial problems of small farmers.

Gradually, Trump has come to the conclusion that the real bottleneck is with meatpackers themselves, which is one of the oldest corporate monopolies in U.S. history.

He has posted the following:

“I have asked the DOJ to immediately begin an investigation into the Meat Packing Companies who are driving up the price of Beef through Illicit Collusion, Price Fixing, and Price Manipulation. We will always protect our American Ranchers, and they are being blamed for what is being done by Majority Foreign Owned Meat Packers, who artificially inflate prices, and jeopardize the security of our Nation’s food supply. Action must be taken immediately to protect Consumers, combat Illegal Monopolies, and ensure these Corporations are not criminally profiting at the expense of the American People. I am asking the DOJ to act expeditiously. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

With this posting, he has put his finger on the problem. Rep Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) points out that “Four meat packers control 85 percent of the meat processed in the U.S.”

Immediately, however, friends of mine in the free-market movement cried foul. He is blaming private enterprise whereas these corporations should be left alone by government to do whatever they want. They treated Trump’s call for intervention as some kind of imposition of government force on the freedom of commerce.

Who is correct here?

Once you understand the history, which goes very deep, you can see that Trump has hit an important point.

The meatpacking industry has been consolidating since the 1880s. This was codified with the Pure Food and Drug Act signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906, alongside the Meat Inspection Act.

It was the first federal law to regulate food and pharmaceutical products. It not only prohibited the manufacture, sale, or transportation of adulterated or misbranded food, drugs, medicines, and liquors, it forced inspection on all U.S. meat processing and laid the foundation for the modern Food and Drug Administration, or FDA. It thereby created or really codified the meat cartel in America, something that has vexed small meat producers ever since.

Part of the reason for the lack of understanding here traces to a false historical understanding.

In the conventional historiography, Upton Sinclair wrote the novel called “The Jungle” that exposed the evils of the industry. As a result, Congress intervened to clean up the industry with new regulations. This became the headline legislation and event that set the agenda for the construction of the entire regulatory state in the United States.

The trouble is that this history is not true. It’s a fable.

The real story was told by Murray Rothbard and many other economic historians. Keep in mind that meatpacking as an industry separate from farming and ranching was a relatively new development. Traditionally, the industry was vertically integrated such that the people who raised the animals also slaughtered and processed them. The meatpackers and processors were attempting to replace these traditional practices. There is nothing wrong with that except that they used government power to unfairly tilt the scales in their favor.

The problems began in the 1880s when meatpackers sought to penetrate European markets. Imports were banned because the Europeans did not trust the quality. The industry then went to the government to certify the cleanliness and safety of their meat. The scheme worked and set forth a model for a different kind of competition. Industry would unite with government as a way of assuring consumers and also driving up the costs of entry into markets such that small processing could not afford them.

As Rothbard writes:

“In February 1906, Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle was published and revealed many alleged horrors of the meat packing industry. Shortly thereafter, Roosevelt sent two Washington bureaucrats, Commissioner of Labor Charles P. Neill and civil service lawyer James B. Reynolds, to investigate the Chicago industry. The famous ‘Neill-Reynolds’ report that apparently confirmed Sinclair’s findings, in fact, only revealed the ignorance of the officials, as later congressional hearings indicated that they poorly understood how slaughterhouses worked and confused their inherently foul nature with unsanitary conditions.”

After “The Jungle” came out, J. Ogden Armour, owner of one of the biggest packing firms, defended government inspection of meat and said that the large packers had always favored and pushed for inspection. Armour wrote:

“Attempt to evade it [government inspection] would be, from the purely commercial viewpoint, suicidal. No packer can do an interstate or export business without Government inspection. Self-interest forces him to make use of it. Self-interest likewise demands that he shall not receive meats or by-products from any small packer, either for export or other use, unless that small packer’s plant is also ‘official’—that is, under United States Government inspection.”

There you have it. The big players in the industry actually favored government intervention.

Thomas E. Wilson, representing the large Chicago packers, said the following during the Congressional debate: “We are now and have always been in favor of the extension of the inspection, also to the adoption of the sanitary regulations that will insure the very best possible conditions. … We have always felt that Government inspection, under proper regulations, was an advantage to the live stock and agricultural interests and to the consumer.”

Imagine, that was 120 years ago, and we are still dealing with the same problem. No meat can be sold to the consumer without being processed by a plant certified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Even the quality of meats on the shelves are named according to official processing: USDA Prime, USDA Choice, and so on.

This has gradually put enormous pressure on small farmers who have to pay exorbitant prices for processing, when cheaper alternatives are readily available. Most small farmers would love to process their own meat on site and sell it directly to the consumers. But federal law forbids them from doing so. This has been true since 1906 and remains true today. The devastating results are the crisis we see today.

What about the issue of safety? Federal regulation did nothing to improve it and much to degrade it. They used the “poke and sniff” method to investigate safety, and did so for decades after, even though this method was known to spread pathogens from one carcass to another. It would have been much safer without federal intervention.

I’m thrilled and surprised that we are finally getting some discussion of this important topic today. The meat cartel certainly needs to be broken up. But the best method of doing so is simply to dismantle the regulatory impediments to competition. Farmers should be allowed to process and sell meat in any way that is advantageous to them. You would think that this would be an easy sell in Congress.

Part of the reason this topic is so triggering is that people do not understand the real history of the U.S. meat industry. If people did understand, it would become much clearer how it is that so many federal agencies are captured by industry interests. Indeed, capture might be the wrong word. They were set up to help big business in the first place. Helping small business instead requires the real restoration of a genuine free market.

Members of the House of Representatives are back on Capitol Hill today for the first time in 54 days, to vote on legislation that would reopen the federal government by midnight, ending the longest shutdown in U.S. history.

A Path to Reopening

Early Wednesday morning, around 1:30 a.m., the House Rules Committee cleared the way for lawmakers to take up a Senate-passed funding package. The plan combines a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through Jan. 30 with a three-bill “minibus” package.

• It will also reinstate federal workers fired during the shutdown and guarantee back pay. It will also prevent further layoffs through the end of January. 

• It also excludes an extension of advanced Obamacare premium tax credits – which Democrats caved on at the 11th hour. 

The full House vote is expected later this evening, likely around 7 p.m., Punchbowl News reports – after which it will head to Trump’s desk for his signature.

Republicans on the committee rejected Democratic attempts to amend the bill, including one proposal to extend expiring Affordable Care Act premium subsidies. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is expected to preside over the swearing-in of Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ) at 4 p.m. before debate begins. Grijalva, elected in September to fill her late father’s seat, has faced an unusually long delay before taking office – a delay that has frustrated Democrats, particularly because her vote is needed to release a new cache of Epstein files.

As Rabobank notes:

The end of the government shutdown should lead to the (delayed) release of economic data collected by federal agencies. This will end the episode of limited visibility for policy-makers and private sector decision-makers, who had to rely mostly on data provided by the private sector. The Employment Report for September may be one of the first to be published, because it was originally scheduled for October 3, so it was likely almost or completely finished. This will be lagging data, but it could confirm the continued labor market weakness assumed by the FOMC and shown in other labor market data for September. The Employment Report for October may take more time to produce. What’s more, the quality of data collection in October (and early November) may have been compromised, undermining their reliability. This could even have a longer-lasting impact on year-on-year data, through November 2026.

Tight Margins and Calm GOP Leadership

With a razor-thin two-vote majority, Johnson and GOP leaders are urging all 219 Republican members to be in Washington. Flight disruptions that delayed lawmakers earlier in the week had eased significantly Tuesday, giving the leadership hope for a full turnout.

Despite the high stakes, Republican leadership and the Trump administration appear confident in support within their ranks. There are no immediate plans for Trump to directly lobby House Republicans, though aides said that could change if the vote tightens.

Several key conservatives – including Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Victoria Spartz (R-IN), and Warren Davidson (R-OH) – are being closely watched. Greene, who has rebranded her political image in recent weeks, has been sharply critical of Johnson’s handling of the shutdown.

That said, Rep. Andy Harris, leader of the House Freedom Caucus, offered his support – a signal that others on the party’s more conservative flank might fall in line.

Democrats Regroup After Failed Strategy

For Democrats, the six-week standoff has underscored the limits of using shutdowns as leverage. Party leaders had hoped the funding lapse would force Trump to break with Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and negotiate directly with Democrats – a strategy that failed to materialize.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held his caucus together throughout the impasse, with only Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) breaking ranks on the initial continuing resolution. Some Democrats have expressed frustration over messaging as the shutdown winds down, arguing the party should pivot toward highlighting Republican responsibility for rising health care costs.

Janet Mills, the Democratic governor of Maine, criticized members of her party on MSNBC for backing the measure to reopen the government, saying Congress lacks a “backbone.” Thune’s promise for a future vote on renewing the Obamacare health insurance credits “doesn’t mean much to me,” said Mills, who is running for Senate.

Yet the moderates saw the future Senate vote — coupled with the legislation’s protections for the federal workforce and full-year spending for food aid — as a path to reopening the government. -Bloomberg 

There’s also growing chatter among House Democrats about Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) leadership, though the calls to replace him carry no practical weight in the upper chamber.

Getting Back To Normal

On Tuesday, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned that there would be “massively more disruption as we come into the weekend if the government doesn’t open,” adding “It is going to radically slow down, so the House has to do its work.” 

It could still take days for air travel to return to normal and probably longer for most of the 42 million low-income Americans enrolled in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to receive delayed benefits. Lengthy backlogs and delays are likely across the federal government as it reopens. –Bloomberg

What Comes Next

Once the funding package passes, Johnson plans to send members home for the remainder of the week. The speaker has warned of “long days and long nights” ahead – but not this week.

In the weeks to come, Johnson faces three major challenges:

1. A Short-Term Fix: The new continuing resolution extends funding for just 79 days, meaning another shutdown fight looms early next year. Negotiators must still resolve disagreements over contentious appropriations bills covering Labor-HHS, Commerce-Justice-Science, Defense, and Homeland Security.

2. Health Care Deadlines: ACA premium tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year. Johnson will need to present a credible health care reform plan to prevent moderates from joining a discharge petition to extend the subsidies. Passing major health legislation within 49 days — during the holiday season — is a tall order.

3. Intraparty Disputes: Conservative members including Reps. Chip Roy (R-TX) and Austin Scott (R-GA) are pushing to repeal a provision in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill allowing senators to sue the government if their phone records were obtained by the Justice Department.

Adding to the tension, by the end of the day, the Jeffrey Epstein records discharge petition is expected to reach 218 signatures, triggering a full House vote on whether to force the Justice Department to release the complete Epstein files. Vulnerable Republicans could face political blowback if they oppose the measure.

If tonight’s vote proceeds as expected, the federal government will reopen for the first time since Oct. 1 – but the brief reprieve may only set the stage for another high-stakes funding showdown early next year.

Oil prices are tumbling this morning, erasing yesterday’s gain as OPEC and IEA unveiled their latest global supply/demand outlooks…

OPEC flipped estimates for global oil markets in the third quarter from a deficit to a surplus, as US production exceeded expectations while the group itself ramped up supplies.

Demand:

• The global oil demand growth forecast for 2025 remains at about 1.3mln BPD unchanged from last month’s assessment.

• In the OECD, oil demand s forecast to grow by about 0.1mln BPD in 2025 while the non-OECD is forecast to grow by about 1.2mln BPD.

• In 2026. global oil demand is forecast to grow by about 1.4mln BPD Y/Y, unchanged from last month’s assessment.

• The OECD is forecast to grow by about 01mln BPD Y/Y. while the non-OECD is forecast to grow by about 1.2mln Y/Y.

Supply:

• Non-DoC liquids product on (i.e. liquids production from countries net participating in the Declaration of Cooperation) is forecast to grow by about 0.9mln BPD Y/Y in 2025 revised up slightly by around 0.1mln BPD from last month s assessment, mainly due to received historical data n 2025.

• The main growth drivers are expected to be the US. Brazil. Canada, and Argentina

• The non-DoC liquids product on growth forecast for 2025 remains at 0 6mln BPD Y/Y. with Brazil. Canada. US and Argentina as the main growth drivers.

The report published this morning also indicated that the OPEC+ alliance pumped more crude than it estimated was needed last quarter.

Saudi Arabia has steered the coalition to fast-track the revival of halted supply this year in a bid to reclaim global market share.

This month, key members showed their first signs of slowing that strategy, agreeing to pause further production increases during the first quarter of 2026.

The organization cited a seasonal demand slowdown, though many analysts warn of a significant oversupply in global markets.

Heading into 2026, OPEC’s data does indicate a surplus, though on a more moderate scale than other forecasters. The alliance would need to produce 42.6 million barrels a day during the first quarter to balance global demand, less than the 43 million it pumped in October.

But, the International Energy Agency (IEA) leaned in hard in the demand side, stating that global demand for oil and gas will keep rising for the next 25 years unless governments change course, according to the Irish Times. In its latest World Energy Outlook, the Paris-based IEA warns that on the world’s current trajectory, fossil fuel use will continue to climb with “no meaningful fall in CO2 emissions.”

The new Current Policies scenario reflects a shift in governments’ priorities toward energy security and affordability, a slowdown in electric vehicle growth, and a “declining” focus on climate action. “Climate change is declining – and declining rapidly – in the international energy policy agenda,” said IEA head Fatih Birol.

Until this year, the IEA had assumed fossil fuel demand would peak this decade — a position fiercely opposed by the oil and gas industry and the White House. The agency denied that U.S. pressure prompted the change, noting that it consulted all member governments.

In July, U.S. energy secretary Chris Wright called the IEA’s previous “peak oil” modelling “total nonsense,” adding that Washington might “reform the IEA or withdraw its support.” The U.S. provides 14 per cent of the agency’s budget.

The Irish Times writes that major producers such as the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and the UAE argue the world still needs oil and gas to meet rising power demand from artificial intelligence and improving living standards.

The Current Policies scenario assumes existing laws remain unchanged for 25 years. Oil demand grows from 100 million barrels a day in 2024 to 113 million by 2050, while EV sales plateau at about 40 per cent by 2035. The Stated Policies case — reflecting announced but not enacted measures — sees oil peaking at 102 million b/d by 2030, with half of all cars sold in 2035 being electric.

Both scenarios show strong gas demand and a peak in coal use this decade. Electricity demand rises roughly 40 per cent by 2035, or 50 per cent under a more ambitious Net Zero path, with 80 per cent of growth in solar-rich regions.

“For some people it is very optimistic, for some people it is very pessimistic,” Birol said. “We just put the scenarios on the table.”

Clean energy advocates note that renewables dominate future power generation in every case. “Nearly all new electricity demand – driven by manufacturing growth, AI, cooling needs, and the shift to electric cars – will be supplied by renewable energy,” said Bruce Douglas of the Global Renewables Alliance.

Finally, we thought it noteworthy that OPEC’s secretariat hailed this shift by its counterparts at the IEA, which before today had in recent years has predicted consumption will stop growing this decade

The IEA, has had a “rendezvous with reality,” OPEC said.

Early this week the UK government rejected a request from the European Commission for up to €6.75 billion ($7.8 billion) to join the EU’s flagship defense program, which marks a significant setback for post-Brexit relations under Prime Minister Keir Starmer and seen as another blow to European unity in efforts to counter Russia.

The European Commission reportedly proposed that the UK contribute between €4 billion and €6.5 billion to take part in the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, and pay in an additional €150 million to €250 million in administrative fees. 

“We will only agree to deals that deliver value for the UK and its industry,” the UK government said in a statement of ongoing, secretive discussions. “Nothing has been finalized, and we will not provide a running commentary on ongoing discussions.”

British defense companies could gain access to the €150 billion SAFE program if an agreement is reached, which is seen as a vital part of the EU strengthening collective defense readiness. A few select non-EU countries including the UK and Canada, and even Turkey, are invited to participate.

Confirmation of Britain’s stance, which sees the European Commission’s proposed fees as far too high, also came in recent Financial Times reporting, which described:

European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen dodged a meeting with the UK prime minister at COP30 in Brazil about Brussels’ demand that London pay billions of euros to secure improved ties.

Sir Keir Starmer sought the meeting to complain about EU demands that the UK pay up to €6.5bn to participate in a loans-for-weapons program and make separate contributions to the EU budget, according to two people briefed on the situation.

A UK official in follow-up said, “We weren’t trying to pin her down to talk about this specific issue. In the end they didn’t end up meeting. He hasn’t spoken to her for a while.”

A mere six months there was a high-profile summit (in May) which was widely seen as a formal “reset” in EU-UK relations. One top EU diplomat was quoted in FT as saying, “Europe’s defense naturally includes the UK.”

The EU is asking the UK to contribute €4–6 billion (plus a €150m admin fee) in return for letting British defense firms bid for up to 50% of a €150 billion EU rearmament fund.

Currently, the UK can only access 35%. France wants the cap kept at 50%.

Source: The Telegraph pic.twitter.com/QbHo9TZ5PY

— Clash Report (@clashreport) November 10, 2025

Bids for projects under the SAFE program are due by November 30, with intense discussions expected between the UK and EU sides to be ongoing until that point.