A major and very dangerous incident occurred over waters off Japan’s southern islands on Saturday, but has only been publicly revealed Sunday. Chinese PLA military aircraft locked radar on Japanese fighter jets, at a moment Japan-China relations have deteriorated to their worst in many years

Japan and Australia are urging calm in the wake of the aerial encounter, with contrasting accounts and accusations from each side that the other is acting dangerously. Defense Minister Shinjiro Koizumi said his country and allies have formally protested it, calling this “an extremely regrettable” act and “a dangerous” one which exceeds “the scope necessary for safe aircraft operations.”

“We have lodged a strong protest with the Chinese side and demanded strict preventive measures,” Koizumi said.

According to a description of the event from Tokyo’s side:

Japan’s Defense Ministry said China’s military aircraft J-15 took off from the Chinese carrier Liaoning near the southern island of Okinawa on Saturday and “intermittently” latched its radar on Japanese F-15 fighter jets on two occasions Saturday, for about three minutes in the late afternoon and for about 30 minutes in the evening. It was not made clear whether the radar lock incident involved the same Chinese J-15 both times.

Japan had scrambled its own jets apparently to monitor Chinese military flight actions in the region, and as readiness in case some kind of deeper intervention was needed:

Japanese fighter jets had been scrambled to pursue Chinese ones that were conducting aircraft takeoff and landing exercises in the Pacific. They were pursuing the Chinese aircraft at a safe distance and did not take actions that could be interpreted as provocation, Kyodo News agency said, quoting defense officials, when the radar lock happened. There was no breach of Japanese airspace, and no injury or damage was reported from the incident.

As for the Chinese side, its military responded in a statement alleging the Japanese aircraft of “harassment” during routine PLA exercises.

PLA Navy spokesman, Senior Colonel Wang Xuemeng, asserted, “We solemnly asked the Japanese side to immediately stop slandering and smearing, and strictly restrain its frontline actions. The Chinese Navy will take necessary measures in accordance with the law to resolutely safeguard its own security and legitimate rights and interests.”

More from the Chinese version of events on the highly dangerous weekend encounter, which could have led to a full-blown shooting conflict:

Japan deployed F-15 fighter jets, rather than reconnaissance aircraft, to the area where China’s aircraft carrier formation was conducting routine training, and these jets repeatedly approached and disturbed the sea and airspace where the Chinese Navy was conducting training.…

— Hu Xijin 胡锡进 (@HuXijin_GT) December 7, 2025

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has slammed the radar lock-in as “extremely disappointing” and declared “We will act calmly and resolutely.”

Takaichi herself has taken center stage in the weekslong controversy, which started when she made comments in a parliamentary meeting last month which made clear Japan could possibly intervene militarily in the scenario of China invading Taiwan. China has been retaliating through measures related to curbing trade, cultural exchanges, and tourism – coupled with threats of more punitive action to come.

Beijing has warned that Takaichi’s verbalized stance constitute fighting words…

Tokyo files formal protest as Chinese J-15s direct & lock fire-control radars on its jets south of disputed Diaoyu

New female PM Takaichi vows to FIGHT FOR TAIWAN pic.twitter.com/GwBzU6Qkzi

— RT (@RT_com) December 7, 2025

Lately, Chinese and Japanese vessels have also had tense encounters near disputed Japanese-owned islands, and each’s coast guard ships have been involved in warnings and threats.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We have been discussing how ChatGPT is accused of encouraging the suicide of various individuals as well as the defamation of other individuals.

Various lawsuits have been filed against the company, but now federal prosecutors have indicated that ChatGPT may have played a role in enabling or encouraging an accused criminal stalker.

The New York Post is reporting that federal prosecutors are alleging that ChatGPT served as the “therapist” and “best friend” to Brett Michael Dadig, a Pittsburgh man who violently stalked at least 11 women across more than five states.

Dadig, 31, is a social media influencer who referred to himself as “God’s assassin” and allegedly would threaten to strangle people with his bare hands.

He reportedly used AI to facilitate his conduct and prosecutors say ChatGPT encouraged him to continue his social media posts.

The account is strikingly similar to the suicide cases where ChatGPT allegedly encouraged him to ignore the “haters” and boosted his ego to “build a voice that can’t be ignored.”

Dadig was reportedly convinced that the messages from ChatGPT reaffirmed “God’s plan” for his alleged criminal conduct.

The question is whether any of these stalked women will join others in suing OpenAI as have families of those who committed suicide.

As I previously noted, there is an ongoing debate over the liability of companies in using such virtual employees in dispensing information or advice. 

If a human employee of OpenAI negligently gave harmful information or counseling to a troubled teen, there would be little debate that the company could be sued for the negligence of its employee.

As AI replaces humans, these companies should be held accountable for their virtual agents.

As many of you know, President Trump pardoned Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) after he fell under investigation for alleged bribery after criticizing Biden’s open border policies. As Trump put it on Truth Social, “For years, the Biden Administration weaponized the Justice System against their Political Opponents, and anyone who disagreed with them,” writing that Cueller had “bravely spoke out against Open Borders, and the Biden Border ‘Catastrophe.’”

Cuellar accused the Biden Department of Justice of trying to bribe and entrap him in a failed sting operation, telling Fox News‘ Maria Bartiromo that DOJ prosecutors went so far as to set up an elaborate sting operation specifically designed to entrap him. He also pointed out that prosecutors found no evidence of any quid pro quo, the very allegation that formed the basis of their case against him. Despite the lack of evidence, they apparently decided to create some.

“Again, no quid pro quo from any of the evidence, from any of the individuals,” Cuellar explained. “And therefore, they even did, attempted a sting operation where they were trying to entrap me, and that failed.”

Cuellar and his wife were charged last year with bribery, with the Biden DOJ alleging they accepted roughly $600,000 from Azerbaijan and a Mexican bank in exchange for political favors. Cuellar’s allegations reveal a troubling pattern of prosecutorial misconduct at the highest levels of the Justice Department – a pattern all too familiar when Democrats weaponize government power against their opponents. Democrats used the Obama administration’s Russian collusion hoax to hobble the first Trump administration. Democrats later impeached Trump twice. Then, the Biden Justice Department and Democratic prosecutors across the country pursued dozens of politically charged indictments against Trump in an attempt to prevent his return to the White House.

Bartiromo was clearly shocked by the allegations.

“Wow, entrapment, bribery. Uh, Congressman, tell me specifically, who tried to bribe you? You mean Biden’s DOJ tried to bribe you?”

“Yes, that, they did,” he confirmed when asked if Biden’s DOJ tried to bribe him. “You know, we got all the, the testimony, the 302s, the sting operation. They set up a false company, a false account. They took out money. We saw all this. They took out the money, and they said this money was to bribe me.”

The scheme allegedly fell apart when they approached his Washington, DC staff with the dirty money. “They tried to use this money. They talked to my DC staff. My DC staff told them no, there was nothing there,” Cuellar recalled. Unable to complete their corrupt scheme, the operatives had no choice but to return the money. “So they actually returned the money back to the account because they couldn’t bribe me.”

Cuellar made it clear this was no rogue operation by overzealous local prosecutors. The entire case was orchestrated from Washington, DC. “So the Biden administration, they tried to entrap me and tried to bribe me, and that failed,” he said. “And this is very significant because one more thing, everything came in from the DOJ in DC. Everything came from the office there. The local office, that is the one in Houston, never got enough.”

 “And from my sources, they did not get involved because they felt there was not a case, and they said, ‘We’re not gonna get involved.’ The Houston office said, ‘We’re not gonna get involved.’ It’s all the DOJ people in Washington, DC,” he explained. When local prosecutors who know the territory refuse to touch a case, that should raise red flags about its legitimacy.

Cuellar says he’s already reached out to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to request a formal investigation. If Cuellar’s allegations are true—and he claims to have the receipts in the form of FBI 302 reports and other documentation, it would be an egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct. Biden’s DOJ didn’t just bring questionable charges against a sitting congressman who dared to speak out against his immigration policies, but also tried to manufacture evidence through bribery and entrapment when they couldn’t find any real wrongdoing. 

Despite Cuellar’s allegations against the Biden administration, he assured Democrats that he’d still be loyal despite Trump’s pardon, and announced his intention to seek reelection as a Democrat, a move that President Trump criticized as a sign of a lack of loyalty in a Sunday post on Truth Social.

“Only a short time after signing the Pardon, Congressman Henry Cuellar announced that he will be ‘running’ for Congress again, in the Great State of Texas (a State where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded!), as a Democrat, continuing to work with the same Radical Left Scum that just weeks before wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in Prison – And probably still do!”

Trump concluded, “Such a lack of LOYALTY, something that Texas Voters, and Henry’s daughters, will not like. Oh’ well, next time, no more Mr. Nice guy!”

Russia on Sunday issued new statements voicing deep concern over the US force posture in the southern Caribbean, warning against any possible slide toward direct military action.

The fresh Kremlin statement said Moscow is standing shoulder to shoulder with Caracas, with a fresh appeal for the Trump administration to avoid exacerbating tensions which could lead to open and unnecessary conflict.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov criticized Washington’s desire to establish unconditional dominance in the region, and decried that this has become the norm for the current administration. 

He warned that “tensions are not easing” and “escalation continues” off Latin America, also after the last few months stretching back to September have seen a string of nearly two dozen deadly US attacks on alleged drug smuggling boats near Venezuela. 

“This is primarily due to the desire to assert the unquestioning dominance of the United States in the region, this is a trademark of the Trump administration,” Ryabkov explained.

According to more of his statement:

“We express our solidarity with Venezuela, with whom we recently signed a strategic partnership and cooperation agreement,” the deputy foreign minister noted.

“We support Venezuela, as it supports us, in many areas. In this hour of trial, we stand shoulder to shoulder with Caracas and the Venezuelan leadership. We hope that the Trump administration will refrain from further escalating the situation toward a full-scale conflict. We urge it to do so.”

The Kremlin in these remarks might also have in mind the just published (on Friday) US National Security Strategy and its significant refocus of America’s priorities on the Western Hemisphere.

The document clearly establishes this as the top priority, saying that the US will now “assert and enforce a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine.”

According to this column, “In Venezuela, the Department of War is indeed playing offense, as Trump promised, but the opponent isn’t really Maduro, it’s Putin” pic.twitter.com/1W0ros2WvM

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) December 7, 2025

The US national security authors write that this means “a readjustment of our global military presence to address urgent threats in our Hemisphere, and away from theaters whose relative import to American national security has declined in recent decades or years.”

While Russia has been a longtime ally of President Maduro, it is unlikely to come to his defense in any direct way, also given the delicate and sensitive efforts to improve bilateral ties with Washington amid talks to de-escalate the Ukraine war. This despite Caracas having formally pleaded for more help from Moscow of late, including arms deliveries.

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice.com,

India’s solar sector has hit that awkward stage of adolescence where ambition seems to be outpacing demand. And now the adults in the room are issuing critical warnings.

A new letter from the clean-energy ministry, quietly circulated to the finance ministry, urges lenders to think twice before showering cash on yet another wave of standalone module factories. When a government that spent the last three years cheerleading capacity expansion suddenly says “maybe don’t,” you can assume the oversupply problem is no longer a theory.

The timing isn’t great for India’s manufacturers. They bulked up with a clear target in mind: the U.S. market. But U.S. tariff walls went up, as did customs scrutiny over Chinese components. This has turned Indian shipments into a slow-moving regulatory piñata. Exports faded. Domestic installations couldn’t pick up the slack. And now the ministry is speaking the painful truth that module capacity could climb to 200 GW in the next few years, and cell capacity could climb to 100 GW.

Local demand won’t come close to that.

Translation: keep building like this and you’re manufacturing future bankruptcies.

The subtext here is political as much as economic. India’s decade-long quest to peel itself away from Chinese supply chains has produced a patchwork of incentives, protectionist barriers, and bold proclamations about “solar self-reliance.” But you can only sustain that narrative if the factories you’ve coaxed into existence have somewhere to sell. Right now, many don’t.

The ministry’s preferred solution is to nudge lenders toward funding fully integrated facilities — the kind that run from polysilicon to finished panels.

That would, at least in theory, give India a more defensible position in the global supply chain. But integrated plants require heavy capex, deep technical expertise, and long-term policy stability. India has not always provided the latter.

The smarter read is this: India isn’t abandoning its solar manufacturing push. It’s trying to avoid a bloodbath.

A gentle warning today is cheaper than a mass insolvency cleanup tomorrow. Whether India’s fragmented solar industry takes the hint is another matter entirely.

The arrest of Brian Cole Jr. on Thursday for planting pipe bombs near the DNC and RNC headquarters on January 5, 2021, has exposed yet another case of media malpractice. The Trump administration quickly noted that all the information needed to catch the suspect had been available to the Biden administration for four years, and yet nothing happened. 

Rather than examine why it took so long to crack the case, the legacy media immediately pivoted to protect the Biden administration. The following morning, legacy media outlets were pushing the narrative, based entirely on anonymous sources, that the suspect told the FBI under questioning that he is a Trump supporter who was radicalized by claims that the 2020 election was stolen.

According to NBC News, “The man charged with planting two pipe bombs near the Democratic and Republican party headquarters on the eve of the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol told the FBI he believed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, according to two people familiar with the matter.”

Other networks promptly followed.

“During interviews with the FBI, the suspect arrested in the pipe bomb probe told investigators that he believed the 2020 election was stolen, providing perhaps the first indication of a possible motive for the bombs placed near the DNC and RNC headquarters, people briefed on the matter told CNN,” CNN reported. 

CNN’s own reporting, however, thoroughly debunked this storyline. Hours prior to the story suggesting the 2020 election was a motivating factor for Cole, a separate CNN report detailed the criminal affidavit against him, which relied on purchase records of bomb-making materials, cell phone location data, and vehicle license plate reader information to identify him.

The criminal affidavit against Cole primarily relies on purchase history of alleged bomb-making materials, cell phone location data and a vehicle license plate reader.

In 2019 and 2020, Cole purchased multiple items consistent with the components used to make the bombs at Home Depot, Walmart, Lowe’s and Micro Center stores, according to the affidavit.

Investigators then went through Cole’s purchase history and determined he bought all of those supplies over 2019 and 2020, the affidavit states. He also purchased equipment to help assemble the bombs, including safety glasses and a wire-stripping tool, the document states.

If Cole was buying bomb parts in 2019 and 2020 before the election, the notion that post-election grievances drove him to plant the bombs falls apart. The Trump supporter angle collapses even further when you look at Cole’s background.

According to a Daily Wire report, he worked at his family’s bail-bond business, which sued the Trump administration over immigration policy in a case decided in November 2020. The family operation, which included helping illegal immigrants get out of ICE facilities, doesn’t exactly scream MAGA activism. Public records show the business entangled itself in left-leaning causes, with Cole’s father even teaming up with attorney Benjamin Crump—who previously represented the family of Trayvon Martin—to demand the Biden Justice Department investigate a Tennessee prosecutor who raised questions about the bail bond company. This family profile is wildly inconsistent with the image of a die-hard Trump supporter.

But even Cole’s family says he wasn’t a Trump supporter.

Cole’s grandmother, Loretta, told the Daily Mail that Cole “has no party affiliation, never votes,” and “don’t like either party.” She described her grandson as socially withdrawn, “borderline autistic,” with “the mind of a 16-year-old,” living in his mother’s basement and grieving the death of his pet chihuahua. She also emphasized that Cole has no social media presence and never engages in political discussions online. All of this information was readily available to reporters, yet they went ahead with the Trump-supporter storyline anyway.

CNN’s Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller appeared on Anderson Cooper 360° to discuss the accused bomber’s purported statements to the FBI about his election beliefs.

CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst John Miller on the accused DC pipe bomber telling the FBI he believed the 2020 election was stolen, according to sources. pic.twitter.com/RbYarZUxoJ

— Anderson Cooper 360° (@AC360) December 6, 2025

Throughout the day on Friday, mainstream outlets reported Cole as a Trump supporter motivated by stolen election claims, despite their own reporting revealing he purchased bomb materials well before the 2020 election even happened. The media had all the contradictory evidence in front of them and chose to ignore it in favor of a narrative that fit their political agenda. They knew the radicalized Trump supporter angle was false all along, but they ran with it anyway. But why? Was it to protect the Biden administration for failing to capture him sooner?

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Saturday that he had a “long and substantive phone call” with his national security secretary Rustem Umerov, Ukrainian negotiator Andrii Hnatov, special envoy Steve Witkoff, and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who were gathered in South Florida.

“I am grateful for a very focused, constructive discussion,” Zelenskyy said on X.

“We covered many aspects and went through key points that could ensure an end to the bloodshed and eliminate the threat of a new Russian full-scale invasion, as well as the risk of Russia failing to honor its promises, as has happened repeatedly in the past.”

“Ukraine is determined to keep working in good faith with the American side to genuinely achieve peace,” he added.

”We agreed on the next steps and formats for talks with the United States.”

The Epoch Times’ T.J.Muscaro reports that Zelenskyy also thanked Trump for his “intensive approach to negotiations,” and said he was now awaiting the return of Umerov and Hnatov to Ukraine, at which time he would receive their report.

“Not everything can be discussed over the phone, so we need to work closely with our teams on ideas and proposals,” he said.

”Our approach is that everything must be workable—every crucial measure for peace, security, and reconstruction.”

The call follows multiple days of in-person talks between Umerov and Hnatov with Witkoff and Kushner, and six meetings between the two negotiating parties in two weeks.

Those talks were ongoing during Russia’s attack on Dec. 6, which saw the launch of more than 50 missiles and more than 620 drone strikes on energy facilities, railways, and residential buildings in 29 locations.

While Ukraine was able to shoot down 30 of those missiles and neutralize 585 of those drones, the day still saw at least eight people wounded, including three in the Kyiv region, according to Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Ihor Klymenko.

“Both parties agreed that real progress toward any agreement depends on Russia’s readiness to show serious commitment to long-term peace, including steps toward de-escalation and cessation of killings,” according to a summary of Friday’s meeting shared by Witkoff on X.

“Parties also separately reviewed the future prosperity agenda, which aims to support Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction, joint U.S.-Ukraine economic initiatives, and long-term recovery projects.”

The day after the attack, Zelenskyy gave a speech congratulating the “warriors” who are “holding back the occupiers on all fronts.”

“I thank our servicemembers who, on the battlefield, do their utmost so that Ukraine has confidence at the negotiating table,” he said.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Maybe it was being in Europe, with a particular shout-out to Zurich for putting me in a holiday mood. Academy also has our holiday party this week, which I’m looking forward to, though I’m not sure why I thought guest hosting Bloomberg TV at 6am the next morning would be a good idea. Or maybe it was the daunting task of needing to write about something that I didn’t feel passionate writing about (knowing that it would be about one out of a thousand Fed write-ups hitting your inbox in the next 48 hours didn’t help the motivation level). Or maybe, I was just jet lagged, lazy, and felt that we covered some of the groundwork in last weekend’s The Santa Rally Recipe.

If I was to do a serious report, in as few words as possible, I’d go with:

• Market is pricing in a 95% probability – the Fed won’t disappoint.

• Powell is as close to being a lame duck chair as we’ve seen, so nothing he says will carry much weight into the new year.

• I think the market is still underpricing:

  • The level of coordination we will see between the Treasury, the Fed, and the admin.

  • The “out of the box” thinking we will see in terms of tools implemented and even the shaping of the Fed to try to achieve my interpretation of the stated goal of 3-3-3 (3% growth, 3% front-end yields, and 10-year bond yields with a 3 handle).

If I was to do something for fun, maybe a bit aggressive and tongue in cheek, I’d go with:

‘Twas the night before Fed Day, when all through the bourse,
Rate cutters were stirring, ready to open the purse.
The voters in revamped Eccles were afraid of a stock market bear,
But, had high hopes that the Santa Rally soon would be there.

The vigilantes were nestled all smug in anger with the Fed,
While visions of much steeper curves danced in their heads.

With Powell at the podium, about ready to rap,
Reporters were left wondering if markets would give a crap.
When out on the South Lawn there arose such a clatter,
The media sprang up to see what was the matter.
Away to the window they flew like a flash,
Clicked on their phone camera shutters, to witness a great clash.

The spotlight fell on the newly named chair,
Who argued that the hawks didn’t have a prayer.
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a shadow chair, with a team of new voices to hear.
With the new driver, sent from crypto heaven,
We knew in a moment it must be Kevin.
More rapid than hawks his doves they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name.

“Now QE! Now Operation Twist! No time to waste!
On Yield Curve Control! Get ready as markets might get a taste.
To the top of the chart! Up Main Street along with Wall!
Now buy every day! Buy away! Buy away all!”

The vigilantes did grumble, the “new” Fed basking in their cries,
When the admin meets an obstacle, they send markets to new highs.
So up to the White House – the doves, they flew,
With the sleigh full of tools, willing to use them too.
And then in a twinkling, I heard on the roof,
The prancing and speaking and even a little woof.
The bond markets were strong, especially in the belly,
Vigilantes shook with rage, arguing that this was all very smelly.

Bessent, with a wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon let us know we had nothing to dread.
He spoke a lot of words, and went straight to his work,
And filled all the bulls stockings, giving the economy a newly found perk.
But I heard him exclaim, even as they never left our sight,
Happy Santa Rally to all, and to all a good night.

My apologies to anyone whose sensibilities I offended (it was meant to be fun) and even greater apologies to those who realize I got bored and eliminated a few stanzas.

In any case, while a bit “over the top,” it more or less fits with my “serious” take, and leaves me with the following bond market outlook:

• 3% or below on Fed Funds by the June 2026 meeting at the latest.

• Steeper yields curves (2s vs 10s are currently at 57) but not so steep that the 10-year doesn’t manage to trade sub 4% (thinking 3.6% to 3.8% seems reasonable).

  • There could be some periods where longer bond yields go higher, but I expect quick and decisive action to try to fight those moves.

War and Peace

Ukraine and Russia keep agreeing to peace deals with the U.S. Unfortunately, the deals that Ukraine agrees to and the deals that Russia agrees to don’t look much alike.

The road to an actual peace deal seems to end in one of two ways:

One side gains ground in the war in the coming months (most likely Russia) causing the deal to look more like what they have agreed to in principle.

Europe does something aggressive:

• Sanctions (including aggressively enforcing the sanctions in place and stopping the loopholes being used, many quite blatantly).

• Military support like we haven’t seen (seems highly unlikely, if not impossible).

• Making a grab at Russia’s frozen reserves (this is what I would do).

In Venezuela, we expect actions to continue to ramp up. While there isn’t an “expiration date” on the USS Ford, there is a sense of urgency to use its capabilities sooner rather than later (it is due for dock time and is very expensive to maintain, especially in a body of water that is relatively small for a carrier group to operate in).

We continue to see three main reasons why the U.S. is so focused on Venezuela:

• It sends a statement to our adversaries. Putin and Mexican Drug Cartels are high on that list.

• A serious effort to “fight the war on drugs” while also refocusing our policy on a North/South alignment.

• Oil. From what we’ve seen in the Middle East and in various proposals for Russia and Ukraine, the admin is likely eyeing access for America and American companies to Venezuela’s oil riches.

What does China make of all of this?

China has been very quiet on the Russia/Ukraine front. How quickly will they embrace a solution where the U.S. is granted vast access and potentially special treatment in Russia? Xi and Putin have had more photo ops than the Kardashians – so they may have a say in what Russia does in the event of peace.

While China has not created any new, far reaching pacts with Venezuela (the way they have with Russia), they have been very involved in the oil production there. Will they readily hand over all further development and control to the U.S.? (Assuming we are correct that this is one of the conditions the President will push for).

Bottom Line

The list of issues that the market needs to deal with have not abated:

• Valuations and the direction of AI tech and spending.

• Electricity generation bottle necks.

• Supply chain risks, especially as the trade agreement with China remains nebulous.

• How markets will react to potential changes at the Fed (you know my thoughts).

• Will rising bond yields in Japan impact bond markets globally? Especially, as recently, we are seeing a strong yen along with higher bond yields – not great for the “carry” trade. In addition to the outright yield being a question mark for global bond markets, the spread between the Japanese 10-year and the U.S. 10-year yield is down to 4.2%, the lowest since early 2022. That too could impact markets.

• The shape of the consumer. The health of the consumer. Whether the market is K, k, or i-shaped is a discussion that is occurring with greater frequency – please see What Shape is the Economy from late September.

Having said that, at the risk of being “complacent,” I don’t think real fear creeps back into the market until later this year, or early next year – seasonality is real and the easing of financial conditions seems real as well.

Looking forward to a potentially interesting week, and my view on the Fed’s likely decision is that it isn’t necessarily what I would do, but it is what I think will happen.

Senators, including Mike Lee, quickly flagged antitrust concerns after Netflix unveiled its $72 billion bid for Warner Bros. (film and TV studios, HBO, and HBO Max), signaling a high likelihood of congressional hearings in the near future. Hollywood insiders were sharply divided, while Wall Street analysts questioned the marriage of a digital disruptor with one of legacy media’s most prominent studios. 

Shortly after the Netflix-WBD deal was announced, Hollywood quickly descended into full-blown panic mode, as we noted:

Already, filmmakers are coming out anonymously saying that the streaming giant, if the deal goes through, would “Hold a Noose Around the Theatrical Marketplace.” Just the fact that creative powerful storytellers are afraid of opposing this deal publicly should tell us something. The deal looks illegal and is likely to face a merger challenge, which I’m going to go into. It may ultimately even prompt a monopolization case against Netflix.

Republican Senator Mike Lee raised the alarm with former WBD CEO Jason Kilar, noting that if the deal went through, it would effectively reduce competition in Hollywood.

Beyond lawmakers and Hollywood insiders, Wall Street analysts commented on the deal, including ones at Barclays that framed a note for clients titled “Poisoned Chalice or Holy Grail?” 

A team of analysts led by Kannan Venkateshwar questioned why Netflix is spending more than $80 billion for a legacy studio company it already disrupted, especially with only $2 to $3 billion in expected synergies and a slow integration due to existing WBD distribution and content-licensing agreements. 

Here are Venkateshwar’s five thoughts about the deal that provide more clarity:

1. We are surprised that Netflix felt the need to spend $80bn+ and pay a premium for something Netflix disrupted, and it is not clear what problem or opportunity Netflix is solving for that couldn’t have been achieved organically. The deal appears to be largely a bet on Netflix being able to execute better than WBD to monetize Warner’s content slate rather than any immediate sources of upside. Expected synergies at $2–3bn are lower than we anticipated, which is likely in part because of Netflix wanting to run the WBD business as is for the most part. The transition path post acquisition will also be drawn out because of WBD’s content and wholesale deals around the world, which will take some time to unwind, and overlapping subs at HBO and Netflix which will have to be supported separately for a while to avoid revenue synergies.

2. We also believe the approval process could be tortuous as was seen in AT&T/TWX under the prior Trump administration. While contentious assets such as CNN are not part of the deal, we would still expect the process to be drawn out. In the interim, Netflix valuation will have to factor in deal risks and post combination transition risks, as a result of which we would expect valuation to keep drifting lower and to be a bit more uncorrelated to underlying fundamental performance. Netflix thus far has been seen as a defensive stock with low leverage, low tariff exposure, low macro risk, etc, but the setup now in many ways will be different with new regulatory and integration considerations. More importantly, the stock would now have more legacy media elements sch as box office performance and licensing, which would need to factor into valuation. As seen in Figure 1 below, even assuming present multiples, Netflix stock could still have downside, but if multiples were to drift lower, the risk reward would skew significantly lower.

3. Longer term, we have highlighted multiple reasons why investors are likely to be skeptical about the prospects of the combination (please see Why a Netflix acquisition of Warner Bros would be a mistake, 31 Oct 2025).  In our opinion, the main issue will be cultural differences in everything from how projects are greenlighted to box office windows, licensing relationships, wholesale distribution deals, and prioritization of budgets across the Netflix and Warner portfolios. While Netflix management team is best in class, this is a large integration to digest even for seasoned management teams and the culture gap between the two organizations is wider than other past media mergers (maybe with the exception of AOL/Time Warner).

4. From a content perspective, now that Netflix has committed to $80bn+ to buy a franchise factory, it has to ensure that it monetizes DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc, to extract proportionate value.  This in turn will likely result in a more Disney-like focus on scaling up franchises, which is unlikely to be costless. As seen in the case of Disney, too much focus on a franchise strategy tends to limit content breadth, which has long-term organizational costs in terms of creative pipeline stagnation. Netflix does have a different content creation workflow vs traditional studios (more bottom-up vs top-down in Hollywood studios) which may protect against this. However, with management committing to one of the biggest deals in media history, the bar to execute is also higher. Therefore, Netflix will likely have to expand its revenue breath to monetize these assets, which may require a more Disney-like approach. This is not necessarily a negative but will mean a very different investment cycle going forward and the acquisition more being a vehicle for a strategy pivot rather than an accelerant to existing growth drivers.

5. Laterally, PSKY likely has no path to get in on the deal anymore with WBD’s board approving the deal. Fundamentally, PSKY valuation is tough to justify without the deal and could have significant downside. We also think PSKY will have to raise significant capital just to fund some of the existing strategic priorities (scaling studio output, UFC, streaming, etc). There is a possibility that there are further deals involving cable networks, given spinoffs from other companies, and PSKY could potentially be involved with some of these possible permutations, but again, this is something that would likely require more capital.

Conclusion: Overall, the asset quality across Netflix and Warner is undeniably formidable and this will in essence have no parallel globally. However, success of the deal will take a long time to manifest and in the interim, Netflix’s investment narrative will likely be weighed down by short-term considerations associated with the deal.

Separate commentary from Benny Johnson may reveal a more sinister plot: Netflix’s plan to “own a monopoly on children’s entertainment.” 

Johnson continued:

This is the most dangerous media consolidation in American history. Netflix is trying to acquire Warner Bros. and HBO in an $82 Billion deal. This means Barack and Michelle Obama and the Democrat super-donors that run Netflix will now own a monopoly on children’s entertainment. – The Obamas already have a nine-figure Netflix production deal – They’ve released 17 propaganda titles focused on children, fatherhood, BLM, and trans ideology. – Obama insider Susan Rice sits on Netflix’s board With this deal, they will now control: Batman, Superman, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Looney Tunes, Scooby-Doo, and many other children’s classics. If it closes, the most powerful propaganda machine in history will be owned by the same people who weaponized the IRS, the FBI, and the DOJ against American citizens. They will rewrite the scripts, reboot the heroes, and algorithm-push trans ideology, race guilt, and anti-family messaging straight into your living room. Your daughter will be told girls can be boys before she can read. Your son will be told America was built on evil. Antitrust laws exist for this exact moment. They prohibits mergers that create monopolies. This is textbook illegal.

This is the most dangerous media consolidation in American history.

Netflix is trying to acquire Warner Bros. and HBO in an $82 Billion deal.

This means Barack and Michelle Obama and the Democrat super-donors that run Netflix will now own a monopoly on children’s… pic.twitter.com/Xr75gSiEaQ

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 5, 2025

Johnson’s view may carry weight given that the globalist Rockefeller Foundation recently partnered with YouTube creator MrBeast to launch “next-gen storytelling that inspires action” – essentially a propaganda machine – aimed at the tens of millions of children who watch his videos.

Rockefeller Foundation Partners With MrBeast To Target Youth With “Next-Gen” Propaganda https://t.co/SUUPJHSdPm

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 29, 2025

Some on Wall Street remain perplexed because, judged strictly on financial metrics, the Netflix-WBD deal is hard to justify. But viewed through a strategic lens, particularly the race to expand a propaganda machine that influences nation-killing woke into more ​​​​​​youth-focused media franchises, the move becomes very clear.

Control over top-tier children’s shows and movie IP effectively allows Democrats and their globalist allies to influence the next generation with toxic wokeim and transform youth into unhinged far-left activists.

The race to shape children’s media consumption is underway. The next battlefield is a war for children’s minds.

Update (1300ET): Elon Musk is not taking the outrageous fine from Brussels bureaucrats lying down, lashing out at EU officialdom for taking on Nazi characteristics and oppressing their own citizens’ best interests…

The tyrannical, unelected bureaucracy oppressing the people of Europe are in the second picture https://t.co/j6CFFbajJa

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 7, 2025

As Catherine Salgado reports for PJMedia.com, Musk also re-shared a post about Irish teacher Enoch Burke, who was jailed for refusing to use transgender pronouns, and later replied to another user, “So many politicians in Europe who are traitors to their own people.”

And Musk highlighted the fact that Meta has a verification program similar to X’s, yet the EU hasn’t onerously fined the more censorship-prone Meta.

Musk reposted and reiterated his previous explanation of why he bought X (then Twitter) in the first place.

“I didn’t do the Twitter purchase because I thought it was a great way to make money. I knew that there would be a zillion slings and arrows coming in my direction.

It really felt like, there was a civilizational danger that unless one of the major online platforms broke ranks, then, because they’re all just behaving in lockstep along with the legacy media.

Literally there was no place to actually get the truth. It was almost impossible. So everything was just getting censored. The power of the censorship apparatus was incredible,” Musk said.

The EU seems to be borrowing ideas from 20th century Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler… 

Pretty much https://t.co/0hspV4roFj

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 7, 2025

Musk confirmed that another user’s report that X terminated the EU Commission’s advertising account was accurate in the wake of the fine.

Twitter used to charge around $15,000 for a blue check verification, while an X Premium subscription is now only a few dollars a month.

Are EU bureaucrats simply angry that the ordinary citizens are now able to afford the verification that used to be reserved to the famous and the wealthy?

Read more here…

*  *  *

For years, many in the free speech community (most vehemently, Jonathan Turley) have warned about the threat of the European Union to free speech, particularly in the enactment of the infamous Digital Services Act (DSA).

The EU has virtually declared war on free speech and is targeting American companies.

That war just began with the first DSA fine.

Not surprisingly, X was the chosen target – a company blamed by many in the EU and the U.S. for rolling back free-speech protections.

In essence, it’s punishment for not bending the knee to the EU’s iron-fisted control over online content.

As Modernity.news’ Steve Watson points out, the fine reeks of the same vindictive playbook the EU has used since Musk took over Twitter in 2022. It’s no coincidence; Brussels has been gunning for him precisely because he’s turned the platform into a haven for unfiltered discourse, refusing to censor at the whim of unelected technocrats.

This isn’t a one-off slap; it’s the culmination of years of threats and harassment. Back in January 2023, EU Commission Vice-President Vera Jourová openly warned Musk that his “freedom of speech absolutism” wouldn’t fly, declaring the “time of the Wild West is over” and threatening sanctions if Twitter didn’t comply with DSA rules. She conflated illegal content with anything the elites deem offensive, setting the stage for today’s fine.

At the WEF annual meeting, the EU regulator threatens Twitter and Elon Musk with sanctions.

She is very unhappy about unapproved thoughts being expressed freely on Twitter.

Your thoughts are too dangerous for the EU bureaucrats to handle! pic.twitter.com/M27cykXqtF

— Igor Chudov (@ichudov) January 23, 2023

In October 2023, EU Commissioner Thierry Breton fired off a letter demanding X address “illegal content and disinformation” related to the Gaza conflict. Musk fired back, demanding a specific list of violations so the public could judge for themselves.

Breton’s vague accusations—citing repurposed images and unverified claims—highlighted the EU’s preference for opacity over accountability. Musk called it out: “List the violations you allude to on X, so that the public can see them.” The EU’s response was not forthcoming, but the threats continued.

Our policy is that everything is open source and transparent, an approach that I know the EU supports.

Please list the violations you allude to on ?, so that that the public can see them.

Merci beaucoup.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 10, 2023

We take our actions in the open.

No back room deals.

Please post your concerns explicitly on this platform.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 11, 2023

Further, Musk brings receipts showing the European Union sent him a formal letter demanding that he censor Donald Trump during the 2024 US presidential election.

Since Musk’s acquisition, X has become a battleground for free expression, reinstating accounts banned under the old regime and prioritizing user-driven content over algorithmic suppression. But for the EU, that’s the problem.

Their DSA empowers regulators to dictate what platforms promote or demote, under the guise of fighting “hate speech” and “misinformation.” In reality, it’s a tool to silence dissent against open borders, climate hysteria, or any narrative challenging the globalist agenda.

This fine doesn’t exist in a vacuum – it’s part of a chilling pattern of EU overreach that threatens privacy and free speech across the continent.

Take the proposed Chat Control law, which would mandate backdoors into encrypted messages on apps like WhatsApp and Signal.

Sold as a child protection measure, it would scan billions of private conversations, exposing users to hacking, fraud, and government spying. Signal’s CEO Meredith Whittaker slammed it as a “catastrophic about-face” that betrays Europe’s privacy commitments, while experts warn of mass false positives and geopolitical abuse.

Then there’s Brussels’ aggressive enforcement tactics. In May of this year, the European Commission sued Czechia, Spain, Cyprus, Poland, and Portugal for dragging their feet on DSA implementation—specifically for not appointing national coordinators or setting penalties. Critics see this as forcing member states into a surveillance straitjacket, where platforms must over-censor to avoid fines, stifling smaller voices and user privacy.

At the heart of it all is the EU’s obsession with controlling information flows. In a January 2024 speech at Davos, Commission President Ursula von der Leyen declared disinformation the “top concern” for the coming years, calling for a “new global framework” where governments and Big Tech collaborate to police AI and online content.

She praised the DSA for defining platform responsibilities, but the subtext was clear: crush platforms like X that don’t toe the line. Jourová echoed this, meeting with Meta and YouTube execs to ensure compliance while targeting Musk’s “absolutism.”

These moves expose the hypocrisy: the EU claims to champion democracy but builds an Orwellian apparatus that monitors, scans, and punishes speech. It’s not about safety—it’s about power.

This latest EU assault on X has infuriated US Vice President JD Vance, who yesterday, as rumors of the impending penalty circulated, took to X and posted:

“The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.”

Rumors swirling that the EU commission will fine X hundreds of millions of dollars for not engaging in censorship. The EU should be supporting free speech not attacking American companies over garbage.

— JD Vance (@JDVance) December 4, 2025

Vance’s previously blistering critiques of European tyranny sent shockwaves through Brussels. In a February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, Vance tore into EU leaders for preaching democracy while arresting citizens for silent prayer, canceling elections, and ignoring voters on mass migration.

“No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants,” he declared, labeling Europeans as more than “interchangeable cogs in a global economy.”

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius called Vance’s opinions “unacceptable,” proving Vance’s point about normalized authoritarianism.

Vance’s words were prescient—today’s fine on X exemplifies how the EU weaponizes laws to crush free speech platforms, treating them as threats to their controlled narrative. With Trump back in the White House and Vance as a key ally, expect pushback: America won’t stand idly by as allies erode the very freedoms that define the West.

The $140 million hit on X isn’t just a fine—it’s a declaration of war on uncensored dialogue.

Musk’s platform remains one of the last major outposts where ideas flow freely, unhampered by globalist filters. As the EU tightens its grip, the message is clear: comply or be crushed.

As Jonathan Turley concludes, this is the first fine under the DSA and the EU officials acknowledged that it will lay the foundation for additional penalties to come to force companies to comply with EU “values” on free speech.

Specifically, the European Commission has imposed a €120 million ($140 million) fine on X after finding that it misled users with its paid-for blue checkmark verification symbol, failed to provide researchers with access to data, and did not properly set up an advertising repository. 

Bingo https://t.co/JRrMjn1UfO

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 6, 2025

X has 60 days to develop solutions to address the issues and 90 days to implement the changes, or it may face additional fines.

The “EU” imposed this crazy fine not just on @X, but also on me personally, which is even more insane!

Therefore, it would seem appropriate to apply our response not just to the EU, but also to the individuals who took this action against me. https://t.co/n2LE0eZiI7

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

Under the DSA, the EU can impose fines of up to 6% of an online platform’s annual global revenue for failing to address illegal content, disinformation, or transparency requirements.

It is still investigating X as well as several other major US tech firms, including Apple, Google, and Meta, under the DSA and the Digital Markets Act.

This includes investigations for failing to carry out demands for censorship, including of American citizens.

The EU woke Stasi commissars are about to understand the full meaning of the “Streisand Effect” https://t.co/2XgsSzwJ7z

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 5, 2025

This is just the first salvo in a war that some of us have warned is coming. We cannot be passive at this moment. The EU is threatening the very indispensable right that has long defined us as a people. Many in the United States are rooting for the Europeans to roll back free-speech protections at X and Meta. Some have appeared before the EU to call for this type of action. They could use the EU to achieve abroad what they have failed to accomplish in the United States. The results will be the same for Americans, who will find themselves subject to European censors and “values.”